05/09/2017

:54:05. > :01:58.It is vital we get design and quality right. Mr Chairman, I will

:01:59. > :02:04.make two points in my speech. I will argue that the majority of these new

:02:05. > :02:08.homes should be built in designs that are popular with the public.

:02:09. > :02:15.Second, I will call for the creation of the new homes on the spine to

:02:16. > :02:20.give new buyers and be dressed for any new homes are of the best

:02:21. > :02:27.possible standard. There was a policy in the Conservative

:02:28. > :02:33.manifesto, one that I was delighted to recommend to everyone, like one

:02:34. > :02:37.or two in the manifesto. In our manifesto we committed to building

:02:38. > :02:43.better houses to match the quality of those we inherited from previous

:02:44. > :02:48.generations, supporting supporting high quality, high density housing

:02:49. > :02:53.and terraced streets. This commitment really stood out to me.

:02:54. > :03:00.As a former member of the planning committee which lasted for some 12

:03:01. > :03:06.years, I know just how terrified some communities are of new

:03:07. > :03:12.development. Not because they are NIMBYs but they are aware of

:03:13. > :03:18.previous development have left community is with horns and suitable

:03:19. > :03:28.for the area. This is actually backed by hard evidence. A recent

:03:29. > :03:32.survey of 2000 edition adults showed 81% are an interview is about living

:03:33. > :03:39.in new-build housing developments. What is more, 60% feel there are too

:03:40. > :03:40.many unattractive or poor elite built new-build popping up across

:03:41. > :04:03.the country. I agree with every word but will he

:04:04. > :04:13.also agree it is possible to have attractive houses that have no net

:04:14. > :04:16.energy bills across the year? They have examples of them. Would he

:04:17. > :04:21.agree that we should go further down this route vesture Mac houses that

:04:22. > :04:41.don't have energy bills as well as being attractive houses. Not only do

:04:42. > :04:47.the houses need to be attractive. It makes those power stations and I

:04:48. > :04:55.were a gas supply go a lot further. He makes a really good point and one

:04:56. > :04:59.that I would very much endorse. Over two fifths feel that new-build homes

:05:00. > :05:07.with lack character and be an eyesore in the local community.

:05:08. > :05:11.These are shocking statistics. We will never build the support for new

:05:12. > :05:18.homes when people fear new housing designs. The latest research shows

:05:19. > :05:25.over half of households would be less opposed to new building at they

:05:26. > :05:32.had more to say over the design and layout of developments. A separate

:05:33. > :05:39.survey shows design clearly influenced public support for

:05:40. > :05:47.new-build homes. Asking people about their local area housing designs in

:05:48. > :05:53.traditional form and style command about 75% support in that local

:05:54. > :05:58.area. Less traditional development styles command variable support,

:05:59. > :06:03.about one fifth, two and one third. The message is clear. People want

:06:04. > :06:10.and are happy to accept new housing if it has got the right design and

:06:11. > :06:15.if we can take local people with us when they are producing new designs.

:06:16. > :06:21.But we can't go back to the mistakes of the 1960s and the 1970 two Adweek

:06:22. > :06:27.modernist designs were imposed on communities, and the damages trust

:06:28. > :06:31.on development for generations. Some of those properties were not fit for

:06:32. > :06:36.purpose and some of them had to come down. This is a once in a generation

:06:37. > :06:49.opportunity and we only have one chance to get this right. We must

:06:50. > :06:52.build new housing in the right way. Thank you for giving way. My

:06:53. > :06:56.honourable friend is making a strong case for something that I think it's

:06:57. > :07:01.terribly important but would he agree it is important to deal with

:07:02. > :07:06.all types of people, new homes for young families quite often. In

:07:07. > :07:10.Somerset, with than a decade, the number of people over 75 are going

:07:11. > :07:15.to double. Is it not right that we should consider purpose-built,

:07:16. > :07:20.well-designed developments for them. More level, sliding doors, perhaps

:07:21. > :07:26.modular, looking attractive, fit again with the vernacular. Is this

:07:27. > :07:30.not essential to Britain to the entire planning process? My

:07:31. > :07:35.honourable friend makes a very good point. We can still have a

:07:36. > :07:40.reasonably traditional design, a regional design, that also fits into

:07:41. > :07:45.the new type of living. With all the people, the particular meat will

:07:46. > :07:53.need wheelchair access, wider doors, all sorts of things. These can be

:07:54. > :08:00.fitted in. I think we probably spend, almost our housing fits into

:08:01. > :08:04.that category, affordable homes, homes for young people, homes for

:08:05. > :08:08.elderly. It wants to be a complete mix. Then can we have a complete mix

:08:09. > :08:13.within the design, we can then get it right. Traditionally you would

:08:14. > :08:19.not have had one type of housing all put together. That is the point that

:08:20. > :08:24.my honourable friend makes. It is a good one. We must build new housing

:08:25. > :08:27.in the right way with design and form sympathetic to local areas.

:08:28. > :08:33.Ruth Davidson hit the nail on the head when she recently wrote, the

:08:34. > :08:38.biggest ally we have been increasing housing supply is beauty. This new

:08:39. > :08:41.houses complement the local environment and avoid the disastrous

:08:42. > :08:51.design choices of the past, we can build sustainable local support for

:08:52. > :08:56.extra construction. I must say, as a Scottish MP, I find

:08:57. > :09:01.it ironic last week, and was looking to see if Ruth Davidson would be

:09:02. > :09:04.getting the polish out for her brass neck to be talking about investment

:09:05. > :09:08.in housing when the Conservative Party have left the mass of social

:09:09. > :09:18.housing crisis in Scotland as a result of the disastrous rights to

:09:19. > :09:20.buy, which has only been helped... Having not have experience directly,

:09:21. > :09:28.I do not intend to answer his question. I believe Ruth Davidson

:09:29. > :09:32.does a very good job. But you would expect me to see that, would you

:09:33. > :09:35.not? She is right, good quality design will boost support for

:09:36. > :09:41.development and then encourage further growth. I want to give a

:09:42. > :09:48.special mention to social enterprise, Creates Streets. They

:09:49. > :09:52.have done fantastic work in the past three years, encouraging the

:09:53. > :09:56.development of quality town and city homes. Their focus is on terraced

:09:57. > :10:01.streets and housing and apartments rather than complex multistorey

:10:02. > :10:05.buildings. We must know these designs are popular, we do know that

:10:06. > :10:10.these designs are popular, with the public. How do we achieve this? The

:10:11. > :10:14.key is a strong community engagement. The tools are already

:10:15. > :10:17.there in the form of neighbourhood plans and design chords. But he need

:10:18. > :10:23.to make sure that the neighbourhood plans are not then overruled by the

:10:24. > :10:26.local district councils and others who decide they still know best.

:10:27. > :10:36.That is something that I want to make sure that local people to get a

:10:37. > :10:41.real input into design. The design code is a set of drawn design rules

:10:42. > :10:45.which instruct and advise on the physical development of an area.

:10:46. > :10:52.Used well, they create certainty about what should be built. But they

:10:53. > :10:55.are not enough used. Local people should be given the encouragement

:10:56. > :11:02.and resources to create the neighbourhood plans with their own

:11:03. > :11:07.design chords. And then be able to carry out the plan that they have

:11:08. > :11:14.put in place. Then they can plan the development they want in their local

:11:15. > :11:19.area. This has two main benefits. It improves quality of housing stock.

:11:20. > :11:24.It also gives local communities a steak and a sense of civic pride in

:11:25. > :11:27.the new development. They are very much buying in to the new

:11:28. > :11:34.development and I think that's what we need to happen more. Shelter

:11:35. > :11:37.recently published a report called New Serving House-building, with

:11:38. > :11:46.practical solutions to building popular and affordable homes. This

:11:47. > :11:50.recommended strong master planning process so local groups, landowners

:11:51. > :11:56.and residents could influence the design of new housing in the area.

:11:57. > :12:01.In turn this will build public support. The Royal Institute of

:12:02. > :12:04.British architecture has also recommended every neighbourhood

:12:05. > :12:10.forum or parish council should have the funding to develop a design code

:12:11. > :12:17.for their own area. This is a very good idea. And there is a village

:12:18. > :12:23.that has drawn up its own local plan but the problem is that there is

:12:24. > :12:26.trying to be overruled by the local District Council and that is where

:12:27. > :12:30.our Government ideas are right and we must make sure that that Cilic

:12:31. > :12:34.can get its way because it has had a local referendum, it has done all

:12:35. > :12:38.the right things, but still it has been scuppered by the local District

:12:39. > :12:43.Council. Imagine how this could Stemmet local design of housing and

:12:44. > :12:48.really boost support for new housing in towns and cities across England

:12:49. > :12:55.and the country. I will give way. Thank you for

:12:56. > :12:59.securing this important debate. Does he agree if we want local people to

:13:00. > :13:04.properly engage in the manner that she is describing it as critical

:13:05. > :13:08.that their decisions, their guidance, their local plans are not

:13:09. > :13:13.over ruled by bodies of which they have very little control? I thank my

:13:14. > :13:19.honourable friend for that intervention. Designs are put on the

:13:20. > :13:23.table. They can be quite exciting designs from developers. Further

:13:24. > :13:28.along the line the developer decides because of economic circumstances

:13:29. > :13:31.they cannot build to that specification, or a water park drops

:13:32. > :13:38.out that was in that particular development. That is where people

:13:39. > :13:42.become very cynical. That is why when things are put forward and

:13:43. > :13:45.local people have an input we do actually need to build what they

:13:46. > :13:52.decided upon, not something that is foisted upon them. It also gives

:13:53. > :13:57.certainty developers about standards they must hit instead of the current

:13:58. > :13:59.race to the bottom. Local people must always have confidence

:14:00. > :14:08.developers will build to their plans. For example in Devon, a new

:14:09. > :14:13.town is being built. There is a proposal elsewhere for a garden

:14:14. > :14:17.town, village, that'll have a water park, a lot of green open space, and

:14:18. > :14:21.what I have seen so far is very exciting. I want to make sure that

:14:22. > :14:26.the developers do actually develop what they say they are going to do.

:14:27. > :14:31.That is a great example of how design should be done, with the

:14:32. > :14:39.design code and proper consultation. This now developers apply the code

:14:40. > :14:43.to mere guidelines, that is a retrograde step that cannot be

:14:44. > :14:47.allowed to happen around the UK. When communities come together to

:14:48. > :14:50.influence local housing design they must know that these plans will be

:14:51. > :14:53.fermented. The local authority should only meant them in

:14:54. > :15:00.exceptional circumstances, not amend them because it doesn't particularly

:15:01. > :15:04.suit their plans for the future. Not to be railroaded by big

:15:05. > :15:12.house-builders chasing some extra profit and deciding the economic 's

:15:13. > :15:18.changed. I have a clear question for the minister. How is the Government

:15:19. > :15:26.is working to meet its manifesto support for high-quality high

:15:27. > :15:30.density tell -- high-density terraced housing and how is it

:15:31. > :15:36.helping to shape design in these areas? The second part of my speech

:15:37. > :15:41.calls for a new home 's ombudsman. The concept is simple. The ombudsman

:15:42. > :15:45.focuses on complaints on new-build homes. I do not suspect that as a

:15:46. > :15:48.member in this chamber at this morning that has not had complaints

:15:49. > :15:58.from their constituents about new build. It would give new home-buyers

:15:59. > :16:02.redress for any dispute from house-builders or warranty

:16:03. > :16:08.providers. I am sure every member today could reel off examples in

:16:09. > :16:14.their constituency. In my constituency, there has been a

:16:15. > :16:19.problem with new homes, and I will name the company, it is Barratt

:16:20. > :16:23.homes, and they have an offshoot, David Wilson homes. The reason I

:16:24. > :16:27.named him is not because they have had problems with the houses there

:16:28. > :16:32.that they have not to it and they have been very reticent. We have

:16:33. > :16:36.contacted them and they are difficult to get hold of and they

:16:37. > :16:42.take ages to make the repairs. Things like roofs are not sealed

:16:43. > :16:48.properly, rendering that is wet and supposed to be damp proof, but is

:16:49. > :16:51.not. All sorts of problems that they do not sort out quickly enough. That

:16:52. > :17:06.is I will give way. A point in my

:17:07. > :17:11.constituency, Bell we homes have been negligent to my constituents.

:17:12. > :17:17.Which he agreed with my constituents that new consumer groups have a

:17:18. > :17:24.dedicated ombudsman, consumers who have bought homes have no redress

:17:25. > :17:29.and are discriminated against by the Government? I thank the honourable

:17:30. > :17:34.lady for her intervention. I do not know about the individual case but I

:17:35. > :17:40.suspect it is similar to ones we all get when we cannot get re-dress and

:17:41. > :17:44.I think that is where an ombudsman where he she could directly

:17:45. > :17:48.intervene to get the builder to rectify the situation quickly. That

:17:49. > :17:53.is what it is about. Builders will eventually get to do it if they have

:17:54. > :17:57.not gone and corrupt in the meantime and all sorts of reasons that the

:17:58. > :18:00.use to make sure we do not carry out those improvements and repairs. If

:18:01. > :18:05.you buy a new house, you should be able to get the quality and the

:18:06. > :18:09.re-dress that is a problem. We have got to accept that when we built a

:18:10. > :18:13.new home, you can get problems with it. I accept that but it is about

:18:14. > :18:20.getting it we dressed properly. By this debate on the House of commons

:18:21. > :18:23.Facebook page, I asked members of the public to give examples of

:18:24. > :18:29.problems they have have with their horns. There was a strong response

:18:30. > :18:36.from leaky pipes to be rendering that is needed. A whole host of new

:18:37. > :18:40.building problems are raised. These are depressing anecdotes and are

:18:41. > :18:47.backed up by hard evidence. The national new home customer

:18:48. > :18:51.satisfaction survey showed an overwhelming 98% of new home buyers

:18:52. > :18:56.have reported snags or defects to the buildings after they moved in.

:18:57. > :19:03.Over four in ten reported over ten faults. I think this is shocking

:19:04. > :19:09.with a new property. I will. I am very grateful for giving way on

:19:10. > :19:13.this. The new homes ombudsman would create a new opportunity to look at

:19:14. > :19:18.the situation of warranties and assurances. As you would know with

:19:19. > :19:22.the modern methods of construction built site, it would be an assurance

:19:23. > :19:29.rather than a warranty. Is there an opportunity to look at all of these

:19:30. > :19:33.again and really give the consumer, give them the powers they need to

:19:34. > :19:37.get decent homes and get the good build they would require? Yes, I

:19:38. > :19:42.thank my honourable friend for that intervention. If you could get that

:19:43. > :19:47.quality of assurance, rather than having to be a warranty, it would

:19:48. > :19:51.work much better because if you take the National house-building Council

:19:52. > :19:55.you will find they can act but once the builder has started doing

:19:56. > :20:00.repairs, they can do no more. If that builder takes a very long time

:20:01. > :20:06.to instigate those repairs, you have no real re-dress and that is where I

:20:07. > :20:13.think there is a rule and the idea of having an assurance scheme so you

:20:14. > :20:16.build is standard and then you deliver it, and you held accountable

:20:17. > :20:22.for it, would be good and I think this is where the ombudsman and I do

:20:23. > :20:27.value that point. If a customer buys good in a shop, they have an

:20:28. > :20:31.automatic power of redress. If someone spends their life savings on

:20:32. > :20:38.a new home, they can sometimes struggled for years to get what they

:20:39. > :20:46.had paid for. If we make mistakes when we -- correcting poor quality

:20:47. > :20:53.homes in the decade, the general public will not forgive us. We are

:20:54. > :20:56.building to higher quality, building to a higher installation quality,

:20:57. > :21:04.but we have also got to make sure they are designed to the way they

:21:05. > :21:07.fit in not only to the local area, but they have a regional variation

:21:08. > :21:12.so you do not go all over the country and see exactly the same

:21:13. > :21:18.design, whether you are in the north of England, Devon, Wales or

:21:19. > :21:21.Scotland. You could almost have an off the peg development and the all

:21:22. > :21:26.look the same. That is what I want to see in the future because the

:21:27. > :21:32.costs will not be that much greater if we can use more imagination as we

:21:33. > :21:36.build. As it stands, the National house-building Council cannot step

:21:37. > :21:40.in if the builders claim they are stealing these problems and this

:21:41. > :21:46.seems to be no time limit on how long the builder can deal with these

:21:47. > :21:50.problems. This is where a new homes ombudsman could step in to close the

:21:51. > :21:56.loophole. It would also give a wake-up call to all house builders.

:21:57. > :22:00.Many argued, but many are not. To sharpen up their act and build

:22:01. > :22:05.design standards and quality is the promise. Builders will know they

:22:06. > :22:17.cannot cut corners as we dress will be swift. The APD for excellence in

:22:18. > :22:21.the build, in the last Parliament, published a report last year into

:22:22. > :22:27.the quality and workmanship of new housing. Their number one

:22:28. > :22:31.recommendation was a new homes ombudsman. Mr Chairman, I think the

:22:32. > :22:36.screw is beginning to turn on this issue and we need to take action.

:22:37. > :22:40.This country is going to embark on a new house-building drive, which is

:22:41. > :22:44.needed but we need to make sure that property is built in the right way.

:22:45. > :22:49.Let's seize the opportunity to give people the sort of housing design

:22:50. > :22:55.they want. Quality, popular design with community backing. All backed

:22:56. > :22:59.up by a powerful new housing ombudsman. I look forward to the

:23:00. > :23:06.Minister's response. Thank you. The question is that this house... It is

:23:07. > :23:11.clear that are a number of colleagues wishing to speak. The

:23:12. > :23:19.wind ups will start at 1230. I hope everyone will be that in mind with

:23:20. > :23:24.speeches of 45 minutes at the most. Thank you and it is a pleasure to

:23:25. > :23:28.serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my honourable

:23:29. > :23:32.friend from running forward this issue. It is a big issue in my city,

:23:33. > :23:40.for those who know Cambridgeshire, you see the view across. Used are

:23:41. > :23:42.seeking is chapel and the University library, two examples of

:23:43. > :23:47.architectural styles, but now you see cranes everywhere. It is a city

:23:48. > :23:52.being rebuilt around us. Whether we are building homes that people can

:23:53. > :23:55.afford, is a debate for another day. There are two issues I want to raise

:23:56. > :24:03.this morning. They are the issues that have been addressed. A couple

:24:04. > :24:07.of weeks ago I was taken to see a new house in Cambridge, is very

:24:08. > :24:11.expensive new home. A line of houses, one that looked like a

:24:12. > :24:16.building site because people have moved in, than so many problems that

:24:17. > :24:22.it had literally needed to be taught apart from the inside. Not once

:24:23. > :24:26.called we did it once, they went back in and there were more

:24:27. > :24:30.problems. It had to be done twice. These people had to not be in their

:24:31. > :24:36.new home for over a one year. Their lives have been wrecked and ruined.

:24:37. > :24:39.As has been suggested, there are same issues elsewhere. I will not

:24:40. > :24:45.name the house-builder because I hope they will do the decent thing,

:24:46. > :24:50.you give them the opportunity to get their money back and go somewhere

:24:51. > :24:54.else. The house-builder should still do that, in my view. That is not the

:24:55. > :24:59.only case as I have heard and I have had others in my constituency. This

:25:00. > :25:02.was shocking. I think it is a matter of attitude from the House builders

:25:03. > :25:07.about how they treat their customers. It is an individual

:25:08. > :25:11.problem, it is also a collector problem, too. As has been set,

:25:12. > :25:16.communities are feeling they are being disempowered. There has been

:25:17. > :25:21.much talk about taking back control. I have to say, from Cambridgeshire's

:25:22. > :25:25.perspective, Brussels are pussycats compared to the House builders and

:25:26. > :25:29.developers, who have not kept their side of the deal, you come to

:25:30. > :25:34.Cambridge and you see the new station development. Many promises

:25:35. > :25:39.made and as has been suggested, as it goes down the line, things are

:25:40. > :25:43.taken out, the promises made. The local council is doing its best but

:25:44. > :25:50.up against the power of the developers, in many people's views,

:25:51. > :25:54.letting people down. At the end, a delightful Terrace, not much to ask

:25:55. > :25:59.about the developers, that had to go as well. I asked a former Secretary

:26:00. > :26:03.of State in the lobby, lots of Cambridge people in this place, he

:26:04. > :26:06.shrugged and said that is not much I can do either. Talk about no

:26:07. > :26:10.control. The Secretary of State cannot do anything about it, the

:26:11. > :26:15.community cannot do anything about it. It is a very engaged community,

:26:16. > :26:21.and imbalance of power. It is not all bad, we have good developments

:26:22. > :26:25.in Cambridge. On Saturday I am joining others to celebrate a new

:26:26. > :26:30.development in north-west Cambridge, which has been developed with the

:26:31. > :26:34.University of Cambridge. A fantastic development for. Trips. That has

:26:35. > :26:37.worked because the University of Cambridge is also a powerful player

:26:38. > :26:41.and they have been able to deal with some of these things, whereas the

:26:42. > :26:49.local community does not always have that same power. Part of fighting

:26:50. > :26:54.back is, I congratulate companies for beauties in my back yard.

:26:55. > :26:59.Agencies like the National Trust are supporting that. It is not just

:27:00. > :27:03.about engagement, but the balance of power. I think that has got to be

:27:04. > :27:08.addressed. There needs to be a new settlement between developers and

:27:09. > :27:16.home-builders and the customers and their communities. Thank you. It is

:27:17. > :27:19.a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. I would like to

:27:20. > :27:23.congratulate my honourable friend for calling this debate and giving

:27:24. > :27:27.so many people the opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns

:27:28. > :27:31.about this area. I would like to commend the Minister for coming

:27:32. > :27:36.today and the work of the Government in trying to innovate the housing

:27:37. > :27:40.market. I am talking about things like the self build projects which

:27:41. > :27:47.the Government has been so good at getting behind. My honourable

:27:48. > :27:50.friend, spearheaded a lot of the work there and my own constituency

:27:51. > :27:56.of Basingstoke is going to be one of the pilots for that. I am excited to

:27:57. > :27:59.look at that thinking. There has been a fundamental change in the

:28:00. > :28:04.housing market in this country, which I do not think has been

:28:05. > :28:11.reflected in any fundamental changes to how this market is regulated.

:28:12. > :28:14.Most homes are built by a hand full of housing companies. Now more than

:28:15. > :28:20.ever, buyers rely on the Government to make sure that those homes, those

:28:21. > :28:27.dudes, well-designed homes, are also built well as well. I hope the

:28:28. > :28:32.Minister can also update the House today in his response on the work he

:28:33. > :28:36.is doing to update building regulations. It is hugely important

:28:37. > :28:44.we do reflect this market in which we operate. It is sad to hear that

:28:45. > :28:48.almost more than half of home buyers have experienced a major problems

:28:49. > :28:54.with their new homes. That was in EU Gold report earlier this year. I

:28:55. > :28:59.would like to reflect on three issues. Firstly, we have to make

:29:00. > :29:02.sure new design actually works. My honourable friend mentioned the

:29:03. > :29:07.Parliamentary group on the built environment report which I was

:29:08. > :29:12.caught sure of. Talking about having an ombudsman in place to make sure

:29:13. > :29:20.that any problems that do experience are mediated and results roughly.

:29:21. > :29:24.Like many other members here today, I have a number of ongoing cases

:29:25. > :29:28.where major house-builders are frankly dragging their feet over

:29:29. > :29:35.dealing with major problems with my constituent's homes, making their

:29:36. > :29:41.life hell and it is not good enough. I am listening with interest. Last

:29:42. > :29:44.year, I spoke at the Federation of Master builders conference and they

:29:45. > :29:50.had the house-building Council who put up slides of shoddy workmanship.

:29:51. > :29:53.The largest numbers of shoddy workmanship came from the largest

:29:54. > :29:57.house-builders, the biggest of the top three. Does you not find that

:29:58. > :30:01.surprising, these are the businesses that could do more about it? Is it

:30:02. > :30:08.not time for the Government to grip this? I think my honourable friend

:30:09. > :30:12.is right. This is why an ombudsman would be important, is a people

:30:13. > :30:15.could get redress and house-builders with note there is somebody holding

:30:16. > :30:21.their feet to the fire and now is the time to act. The second issue is

:30:22. > :30:24.around the warranties that house-builders give because I think

:30:25. > :30:30.most people do not realise that all home warranties are the same and

:30:31. > :30:35.Premier guarantee is not the same as it. Consumers do not understand this

:30:36. > :30:39.and I think consumers are being potentially misled. My honourable

:30:40. > :30:44.friend, the minister, make no from looking through his in trade from

:30:45. > :30:50.his predecessor that I campaigned very hard for a change in building

:30:51. > :30:54.control performance standards because of the problems of

:30:55. > :31:00.inspections of houses on the site being carried out in a shoddy way.

:31:01. > :31:03.New performance standards came into place to reflect this on the 1st of

:31:04. > :31:09.April this year and I was wondering if he could update the House on how

:31:10. > :31:09.the implementation of these new performance design control standards

:31:10. > :31:22.are going? New houses should promote well-being

:31:23. > :31:26.in our community. They should not promote disharmony and concern. As

:31:27. > :31:29.part of that review of building control standards will the Minister

:31:30. > :31:35.look at a particular issue that has been raised by one of my councillors

:31:36. > :31:47.around the issue of sound insulation and houses. I have written to him

:31:48. > :31:51.about this. Many new homes have poor sound insulation, plasterboard

:31:52. > :31:55.walls, should he not be looking at amending building regulation part E

:31:56. > :31:59.to enrich the standards for sound transmission in homes are set. Full

:32:00. > :32:03.standards are currently falling short of what people need to have

:32:04. > :32:09.good mental health when they live in their new homes. Finally, I would

:32:10. > :32:15.just also asked the minister as he could give me an indication of when

:32:16. > :32:20.the governments might be responding to the women and equality Select

:32:21. > :32:24.Committee report on the availability of housing for disabled people. The

:32:25. > :32:27.report made important recommendations about the

:32:28. > :32:32.availability of housing for disabled people, particularly people who when

:32:33. > :32:38.we get older we may get more disabled, as was mentioned earlier,

:32:39. > :32:51.perhaps when he could give me a response to that important set of

:32:52. > :32:55.recommendations? I want to congratulate the honourable friend

:32:56. > :33:00.for securing this debate. This housing crisis is unprecedented. The

:33:01. > :33:04.housing market is broken and it is failing to deliver anything close to

:33:05. > :33:09.the 300,000 homes per year we need to address housing need. The broken

:33:10. > :33:12.nature of the housing market and the failure of the Government to tackle

:33:13. > :33:17.it is stifling the number of new homes being built but also damaging

:33:18. > :33:25.the quality of those homes being built. Last year, an inquiry was

:33:26. > :33:29.undertaken into the quality of new homes. The inquiry was undertaken in

:33:30. > :33:33.response to an increase in complaints for people who purchased

:33:34. > :33:36.a new home, the most expensive item they ever purchased, only to find

:33:37. > :33:41.her in the mood then there was something seriously wrong, faulty

:33:42. > :33:50.electrics, rising damp, poor quality. Research by Which found

:33:51. > :33:57.that half of new homes have seen his defects, indicating that this is a

:33:58. > :34:01.serious and widespread problem. This is not acceptable. Not only is the

:34:02. > :34:05.brand-new home that someone had anticipated moving into flawed, but

:34:06. > :34:10.the flaws can undermine quality of day-to-day life, physical and mental

:34:11. > :34:13.health, and can take months or years to resolve. Several recommendations

:34:14. > :34:17.were made for new-build homes, including changes to the inspection

:34:18. > :34:22.regime, with a defined minimum number of inspections, and the

:34:23. > :34:27.setting up of a new homes ombudsman. The ombudsman must have teeth, be

:34:28. > :34:31.properly resourced, act quickly to right the wrongs that it identifies.

:34:32. > :34:34.The ombudsman and the compensation scheme should be funded by the

:34:35. > :34:38.development industry providing an incentive to get homes right first

:34:39. > :34:42.time and not to compromise quality standards in the rush to increase

:34:43. > :34:47.profits. I support this recommendation on the basis of the

:34:48. > :34:53.problems my constituents have had to get redress, but I want to focus on

:34:54. > :35:01.the underlying reason why the homes are so poor. There is too much

:35:02. > :35:03.speculation in the land market, artificially inflated prices, many

:35:04. > :35:08.developers believe they had to make as a profit before they can build a

:35:09. > :35:11.scheme. This result in a structural focus on the bottom line and

:35:12. > :35:16.therefore on cutting costs. Since staff costs are relatively fixed

:35:17. > :35:20.that is the cost of materials that is pared back to the minimum. On so

:35:21. > :35:24.many housing schemes any generosity of design which was intended in the

:35:25. > :35:29.original plans is costs ensured out by using cheaper materials, meaner

:35:30. > :35:33.proportions, or cutting corners on the build itself. This is something

:35:34. > :35:37.not an adequate basis for a housing market that needs to deliver so much

:35:38. > :35:42.so quickly and it is not acceptable that short-term profits are being

:35:43. > :35:45.achieved at the expense of the long-term quality and health and

:35:46. > :35:49.well-being of residence. The second is the systematic reduction in

:35:50. > :35:55.resource and regulation that underpins design quality of homes in

:35:56. > :35:57.the UK since 2010. The Coalition Government simplified planning

:35:58. > :36:01.policy. There was no disagreement about the need for super thickish

:36:02. > :36:15.and that they went too Fat and one of this project was -- but they went

:36:16. > :36:19.too far. Under the previous Labour Government the commission for

:36:20. > :36:22.architecture and the built environment advised and reviewed the

:36:23. > :36:26.quality of many planning applications and master plans for

:36:27. > :36:32.new homes and published a huge body of work on design quality. That is

:36:33. > :36:36.no an organisation with a diminished resource and since services are no

:36:37. > :36:40.longer funded by Government the number of authorities which can

:36:41. > :36:43.afford these services is reduced. There has been no comprehensive

:36:44. > :36:48.review of the quality of design of new homes being built across the UK

:36:49. > :36:52.for more than ten years and there is no systematic post-occupancy

:36:53. > :36:56.evaluation of the quality of new homes. Good design is about more

:36:57. > :37:00.than the appearance of a new home, it is also about sustainability,

:37:01. > :37:06.energy efficiency, robustness, flexibility to the changing

:37:07. > :37:08.requirements. Since 2010 this Government has removed many policy

:37:09. > :37:14.requirements that previously helped to drive up the quality of design

:37:15. > :37:22.including the zero carbon homes, and the lifetime standard. The

:37:23. > :37:26.Government has also refused to incorporate the space standards and

:37:27. > :37:30.to building control regulations resulting in a situation where the

:37:31. > :37:34.number of homes built below the standards trebled from 2013-2016 and

:37:35. > :37:40.some homes are being built in London at just 16 square metres. The home

:37:41. > :37:44.building industry is responsive to the policy environment that is in

:37:45. > :37:47.and it will adapt to meet new quality standards and the standards

:37:48. > :37:51.matter because many parts of the sector will only deliver the bear

:37:52. > :37:56.minimum the Government requires them to. Leadership from the Government

:37:57. > :37:59.in this area is lacking and must be a rapid change of approach to set

:38:00. > :38:05.the standard UK residents require from the new homes. Finally, the

:38:06. > :38:10.lack of direct Government funding for genuinely affordable social

:38:11. > :38:14.housing, a problem in itself in addressing the housing crisis, also

:38:15. > :38:17.contributes directly to poor design quality. The number of social homes

:38:18. > :38:21.built with Coalition funding since the start of the Coalition

:38:22. > :38:27.Government has dropped by 95%. The Government has not increased the

:38:28. > :38:30.borrowing cap on councils. Delivery of affordable housing, often not

:38:31. > :38:35.affordable it was built to this Government definition, is dependent

:38:36. > :38:39.on cross subsidy from private seals which creates an incentive to

:38:40. > :38:43.maximise the number of homes at the expense of design quality and

:38:44. > :38:46.minimise materials and lower specification. The Government must

:38:47. > :38:50.do what the Labour Party has pledged to do and restore the building of

:38:51. > :38:55.genuinely affordable social homes, with a civic purpose to the building

:38:56. > :38:58.of new homes. We face such a huge challenge to build the new homes we

:38:59. > :39:02.need is that the Government must at the same time make sure that the

:39:03. > :39:09.homes we built our high quality, energy efficient, with a generous

:39:10. > :39:11.space standards, open space, good storage for bicycles, refuges,

:39:12. > :39:16.pleasant places to live that can stand the test of time and become

:39:17. > :39:20.communities of the future. Ensuring new homes in the UK are of high

:39:21. > :39:26.quality requires structural change in the land market and reform of the

:39:27. > :39:30.viability assessments that are used to justify cutting costs. It

:39:31. > :39:33.requires a Government commitment for genuinely affordable new homes built

:39:34. > :39:38.for a social and civic purpose to beat our desperate need for housing,

:39:39. > :39:45.rather than for profit, and that commitment is lacking. It requires

:39:46. > :39:50.properly planning, good access to design, a framework that raises the

:39:51. > :39:58.bar in particular on environmental sustainability and accessibility on

:39:59. > :40:07.new homes. I congratulate my honourable friend

:40:08. > :40:12.on organising this timely debate. He made some very important point is

:40:13. > :40:15.particularly about the manifesto commitment, the Conservative

:40:16. > :40:21.manifesto commitment, for higher density housing, mews houses,

:40:22. > :40:25.mansion blocks, and the like. I would like to join with him and

:40:26. > :40:29.emphasising the importance of this because I thought his speech neatly

:40:30. > :40:32.summarised the slightly schizophrenic approach which we have

:40:33. > :40:36.in this country. It doesn't matter where you are on the political

:40:37. > :40:43.spectrum, which part of the country you are in, if you mention high rise

:40:44. > :40:49.living, people automatically picture some sort of brutalist 1960s tower

:40:50. > :40:54.block and their hackles start to rise and they get concerned about

:40:55. > :40:59.the quality and design of the bills, and the impact on the people living

:41:00. > :41:08.in that development, and also on the public realm which are influences

:41:09. > :41:12.around it. But mention mansion blocks, terraced streets, mews

:41:13. > :41:19.houses, all together on a more human scale, things which are four, five,

:41:20. > :41:24.six stories tall, friends in long-established city centres in

:41:25. > :41:27.London, Bath, Bristol, many of the prosperous Victorian cities of the

:41:28. > :41:31.Midlands and the north, and they take a very different approach. They

:41:32. > :41:34.are much more welcoming because those designs have stood the test of

:41:35. > :41:40.time. I thought his comments about trying to make sure that you get

:41:41. > :41:46.local buying is important. You may have vernacular style, a local

:41:47. > :41:51.style, often using local materials as well, that it can be of a high

:41:52. > :41:53.modern building technique and a modern building standard which

:41:54. > :41:59.allows you to deliver some of the other things, made by other

:42:00. > :42:06.colleagues, greener buildings, more energy-efficient and so on, at the

:42:07. > :42:10.same time. He is making a very good point about

:42:11. > :42:14.higher density but would it not be right that green spaces must be

:42:15. > :42:17.included, if not in these properties, everybody does not need

:42:18. > :42:22.to have a garden, they must have some dean space nearby, because the

:42:23. > :42:31.survey has indicated that that is a direct link between health and

:42:32. > :42:39.well-being and green space. That is an important point. The advantage of

:42:40. > :42:44.building up, not out, is precisely that you managed to preserve, in

:42:45. > :42:48.some cases enhance, available green space, because by taking existing

:42:49. > :42:54.urban centres, they may not be city centres, it can be seaside towns,

:42:55. > :42:57.market towns, take those kind of city and town centres and increase

:42:58. > :43:03.the density by working within the existing street plan, the existing

:43:04. > :43:08.plots, by saying many of the town centres are two stories tall, maybe

:43:09. > :43:14.three, what don't most mean streets in most towns and you look up, you

:43:15. > :43:17.will see large amounts of fresh air which is economically potentially

:43:18. > :43:23.valuable if it is properly developed and providing it is developed in a

:43:24. > :43:27.modern style. Not this is sadly a modernist style. Modern materials,

:43:28. > :43:31.in keeping with the local style, so that many of the problems that have

:43:32. > :43:36.been mentioned by the preceding Speaker from the Labour Party about

:43:37. > :43:40.value engineering and difficulty of making sure that economic value is

:43:41. > :43:44.achieved go away. If you have an existing plot and they put an extra

:43:45. > :43:49.couple of stories on it, you are by no means tripping over problems

:43:50. > :43:54.which my honourable friend was talking about about high-rise

:43:55. > :43:57.living. People will accept that. You only have two walk-through town

:43:58. > :44:02.centres like the ones nearby to see that will accept that. It is an

:44:03. > :44:07.extraordinary statement to consider that parts of Kensington and and

:44:08. > :44:12.other parts of Westminster, and you we are, are some of the highest

:44:13. > :44:16.density housing developments in entire country was they are hardly

:44:17. > :44:20.bywords for inner-city and urban decay. They argued examples of

:44:21. > :44:27.designs and systems of living which have stood the of time. I want to

:44:28. > :44:32.make a plea. Sing a hymn of praise if I can't building up, not out.

:44:33. > :44:36.Because it attract new investment into existing town and city centres,

:44:37. > :44:47.hotels of urban regeneration. It also reduces urban sprawl, helping

:44:48. > :44:50.protect green spaces. You do not have to eat into green belts. It

:44:51. > :44:56.breaks the stranglehold, we have heard from this, the stranglehold of

:44:57. > :45:01.established housing developments, because they often are not so keen

:45:02. > :45:04.on building in small plots in the centre of towns. Smaller local

:45:05. > :45:08.developers and builders are more keen to do so. And it is greener

:45:09. > :45:13.because it reduces commuting times, people can live closer to work and

:45:14. > :45:18.live in an energy efficient fashion. Might we lead to the Minister is

:45:19. > :45:23.this. How can we get this manifesto commitment to build up, not out?

:45:24. > :45:30.Increase urban density? Get that to go faster? The White Paper committed

:45:31. > :45:34.to development to build up and not out, I hope he will take that

:45:35. > :45:39.seriously consider whether or not we can increase the level of credit

:45:40. > :45:43.which local authorities get for local development orders, to allow

:45:44. > :45:48.people to build up in the middle of towns. Housing inspectors, when

:45:49. > :45:51.considering local plans, will give credit for the extra building which

:45:52. > :45:54.might happen, which they do not currently accept as part of that,

:45:55. > :45:58.the assessment of local housing needs, whether or not that will

:45:59. > :46:00.provide incentives to local communities to want to have people

:46:01. > :46:12.to build beauty in their backyard. I would thank him in securing the

:46:13. > :46:18.debate. I was working for a consultancy. This is an area and a

:46:19. > :46:21.little bit about, from skyscrapers to new housing developments. We all

:46:22. > :46:28.recognise is a need for more housing. I recognise the agenda that

:46:29. > :46:31.the members spoke of, something that is powerful in cities like

:46:32. > :46:35.Manchester and London but also places like Plymouth. We do need to

:46:36. > :46:39.make sure that the housing quality we are building by not only

:46:40. > :46:44.attractive on the outside but usable and sustainable on the inside as

:46:45. > :46:47.well. That is why looking at the sustainability of those homes but

:46:48. > :46:51.also the lifetime nature of the people that are living in those

:46:52. > :46:56.homes, is essential in building in the quality of life. In the push to

:46:57. > :46:58.address the housing crisis, which is real and pressing, poor housing

:46:59. > :47:03.design and poor quality buildings are being built. We have heard today

:47:04. > :47:08.about housing that has been bought on the open market, but I am also

:47:09. > :47:13.concerned about affordable housing that has been transferred to housing

:47:14. > :47:17.associations. I know from the area that I represent, the affordable

:47:18. > :47:21.housing that has been built lacks the sound installation that was

:47:22. > :47:26.spoken about earlier and is producing a negative social impact

:47:27. > :47:28.for the people who live in that property, simply because there was

:47:29. > :47:33.not enough sound installation installed. That makes it very

:47:34. > :47:37.difficult to retrofit. A quality product is not need to be an

:47:38. > :47:41.expensive product. That is something we need to take into the heart of

:47:42. > :47:45.the housing strategy going forward. That is not the experience of the

:47:46. > :47:49.new-builds implement, but we need to make sure is built throughout the

:47:50. > :47:55.whole strategy from now on. Plymouth is seeing a housing boom and bust of

:47:56. > :48:01.student blocks are being built left, right and centre. Some of them had

:48:02. > :48:04.been retrofitted milk built, in light of Grenfell Tower, having

:48:05. > :48:08.cladding removed to make sure they are safe. Too many of those student

:48:09. > :48:14.blocks look poor quality from the outside and look poor quality from

:48:15. > :48:18.the inside. My concern is the being built quickly and cheaply with the

:48:19. > :48:22.design they will last for 20 years and get knocked down. That may seem

:48:23. > :48:26.good on a spreadsheet, but my concern is when it comes to the

:48:27. > :48:29.practicalities of 20 years' time, we will be there and existing for

:48:30. > :48:34.another 20 years. We need to be clear where they are built. Too many

:48:35. > :48:40.of the student blocks, poor quality I been built on the wrong place.

:48:41. > :48:46.Near the Plymouth station on the right-hand side, that has been built

:48:47. > :48:49.on the wrong place. It was objected to but sadly the Government planning

:48:50. > :48:54.inspector approved it at the end. That is not look was in action.

:48:55. > :48:59.There are superb examples where housing is being built. I would

:49:00. > :49:03.single out one example in Plymouth, the Nelson house self build project,

:49:04. > :49:10.creating 24 affordable homes. That is a self build project being built

:49:11. > :49:14.by veterans. The Devon community and housing and the building 24 homes

:49:15. > :49:18.with veterans who were previously homeless. Not only are the building

:49:19. > :49:22.their own homes, they are gaining skills that help every single better

:49:23. > :49:28.and that has worked on that project now secure a job in the construction

:49:29. > :49:33.industry. In terms of learning from good quality design, that is only 24

:49:34. > :49:38.units, we need more of those. As an idea, that is scalable. I would

:49:39. > :49:41.encourage him to look at what is happening there and encourage

:49:42. > :49:46.veterans self build in a way of helping homeless veterans to gain

:49:47. > :49:52.skills and get a home for their own. In our history built, let's make

:49:53. > :49:56.sure we build well. The remaining speakers have four minutes. Thank

:49:57. > :50:01.you. It is an honour to be called. May I also joined the chorus of

:50:02. > :50:07.congratulations to the Right Honourable member who has secured

:50:08. > :50:11.this essential debate. It is a topic I have been interested in since

:50:12. > :50:16.childhood where my father who worked for a house-building company, took

:50:17. > :50:22.me to see Banbury, the village designed by the Prince of Wales in

:50:23. > :50:26.Dorset. It is a model village. The whole point of it is that there are

:50:27. > :50:30.separate houses built to look individual with a view of detail and

:50:31. > :50:36.architectural merit. The reason I draw attention to that, it seems to

:50:37. > :50:39.me that people, and many members will have seen objections to

:50:40. > :50:46.planning applications, the objections can be on two grounds. It

:50:47. > :50:51.is practical, how do I get to work? Is the doctor 's surgery going to

:50:52. > :50:54.court? I will not address that, given the topic of the debate. The

:50:55. > :50:59.second point, is it going to wreck the nature of the place that I love,

:51:00. > :51:03.that I have moved into? That is the place that I call home. It is that

:51:04. > :51:10.second aspect where housing design is critical. The issue is, how to

:51:11. > :51:15.square the Circa. Most people's attitude to development is

:51:16. > :51:18.reasonable. We do not want to see fields concreted over the do

:51:19. > :51:21.understand is a for housing. The understand our young people need

:51:22. > :51:26.somewhere to live. That is the challenge we all have today. We need

:51:27. > :51:29.to ensure we do not have housing in unsustainable numbers, it is

:51:30. > :51:34.critical we do not have an obsession with obsession with politicians with

:51:35. > :51:40.numbers. It is that I would like to address my comments too. If the wok

:51:41. > :51:43.down the street of any of our market towns, we will all have examples in

:51:44. > :51:50.our constituencies. I would urge all members to do is to look up. If we

:51:51. > :51:55.look up, we will see all sorts of features that were once built and

:51:56. > :51:58.used to be commonplace. Victorian Georgian housing, that is what

:51:59. > :52:02.happened. It happens abroad. There is no reason why they cannot

:52:03. > :52:07.continue to do this. It might be Flemish brickwork work chimneys,

:52:08. > :52:11.crowd mouldings or details, or guttering that has a design and

:52:12. > :52:16.merit of itself. There are so many of these that one could do. The cost

:52:17. > :52:24.implication will all be something that is set by developers to be is

:52:25. > :52:28.not the case. A report has been produced on this as to the cost

:52:29. > :52:34.implication does not increase. What this does, it might be in my

:52:35. > :52:39.constituency, slate roofs are important. Any new development is

:52:40. > :52:44.not vast amount of numbers that are on the outside of an attractive

:52:45. > :52:47.village and fundamentally change its nature, it means the building

:52:48. > :52:53.complements the area it is in. In that way, we can look to have public

:52:54. > :52:56.consent to the building that we have to have. Without public consent,

:52:57. > :53:01.without people accepting they have to get to work but also the nature

:53:02. > :53:05.of the village and home not change, then we will not have public consent

:53:06. > :53:09.for the housing that is required. The planning process is important.

:53:10. > :53:13.The local planning process is essential. That is one of the ways

:53:14. > :53:17.we have to combat speculative development. Developers are coming

:53:18. > :53:21.to a constituency, impose housing on a village who may not want in that

:53:22. > :53:26.form and then leave a part of the problem here. Part of the solution

:53:27. > :53:30.is to use local smart builders. I have some superb examples. If

:53:31. > :53:35.someone is born locally, if you works locally, if his company builds

:53:36. > :53:39.his house is locally, whose children go to the school and will be staying

:53:40. > :53:43.in that area long after the houses are built and weathered into the

:53:44. > :53:45.environment, they will make sure their housing and development

:53:46. > :53:51.complements and does not like the area. That is critical, as is the

:53:52. > :53:59.reference to self build. I agree that Juliet with that. I would like

:54:00. > :54:03.to make the terms of cost, timber frames are made in other countries.

:54:04. > :54:11.It was forbidden for many years to be lifted. I have an example of my

:54:12. > :54:15.constituency. It offers speed of construction, cheaper cost and has

:54:16. > :54:21.environmental benefits. We should be looking at using a great deal more,

:54:22. > :54:25.I would submit. It is the same with prefabrication. It was used after

:54:26. > :54:31.the war and seems to have a dirty name. But there are examples that

:54:32. > :54:38.have all of those benefits. My conclusion, in the time I have

:54:39. > :54:41.available, the white paper is Alexa bill -- is an excellent start. I

:54:42. > :54:47.would ask those who start a conversation and not the end. Local

:54:48. > :54:51.communities must have a say. I welcome the focus on design quality

:54:52. > :54:55.and quality of design and architectural merit. We must have

:54:56. > :55:00.public support and we must not be obsessed pure lead with numbers when

:55:01. > :55:05.we are building houses. We need the infrastructure but the environment

:55:06. > :55:09.is crucial. We must, I conclude by saying, we are building homes not

:55:10. > :55:14.houses. We must remember we are building places, not just filling

:55:15. > :55:19.spaces in our countryside. Had I congratulate the honourable

:55:20. > :55:22.gentleman for bringing this forward. It is an issue that is important in

:55:23. > :55:29.my constituency. I declare an interest. For this debate today, I

:55:30. > :55:33.have been concentrating on design element and design and along with

:55:34. > :55:43.that health as well. The ramifications of purely designed

:55:44. > :55:46.buildings, it is incumbent on us to build an environment that is healthy

:55:47. > :55:50.and safe. Everyone loves moving into a new home or a home that is freshly

:55:51. > :55:57.built or just new to the owner, it is important we must make sure they

:55:58. > :56:00.are safe and healthy homes. The healthy homes established the

:56:01. > :56:03.highlight the health and cost benefits. Constructing our homes to

:56:04. > :56:09.the highest quality and low standards. We spent 90% of our times

:56:10. > :56:13.indoors, it is important we look at these issues clearly and have homes

:56:14. > :56:17.that are fit for purpose. The cost of health service of purely

:56:18. > :56:25.instructed homes is monumental. These figures will indicate that. It

:56:26. > :56:28.is estimated that cost 2.5 billion throughout the UK every year.

:56:29. > :56:32.Getting the homes right and you address some of the issues of

:56:33. > :56:37.health. That is stopping people being unhealthy and the cost

:56:38. > :56:42.involved in that. Poor installation and poor a quality, light quality,

:56:43. > :56:47.have all been proven to cause or exasperate a variety of health

:56:48. > :56:52.problems. Including mental health problems. These are queer issues

:56:53. > :57:00.that homes are not designed well will lead to. -- we issues. I would

:57:01. > :57:05.encourage all members to to be be paper recently put out a

:57:06. > :57:08.consultation that makes a number of key recommendations that ensures our

:57:09. > :57:12.homes are built to promote health and well-being. If you do not have

:57:13. > :57:18.one of those, I will send it to you and the initiator to this debate as

:57:19. > :57:19.well. Issues over health and housing has been disjointed with

:57:20. > :57:29.responsibilities over multiple departments. Quite clearly, that

:57:30. > :57:35.being the issue, we want to make sure a cross departmental committee

:57:36. > :57:37.to champion change in that sector, recognising the interaction between

:57:38. > :57:43.building, health and the economy. We would also ask the Government to

:57:44. > :57:47.support projects such as the healthy new towns, promising to rethink how

:57:48. > :57:51.health services can be delivered, as well as building a solid base of

:57:52. > :57:54.evidence of the dilemma between health and housing provision. The

:57:55. > :58:03.two have to work together. Thirdly, a report by the Green building

:58:04. > :58:08.Council suggests... It is insufficient to talk only in terms

:58:09. > :58:16.of new housing design, retrofitting new homes must be a governmental

:58:17. > :58:22.priority. My constituency up in Northern Ireland has a lot of

:58:23. > :58:28.construction firms, small firms, who build lots of individual houses but

:58:29. > :58:32.also development as well. We in Northern Ireland, must be one of the

:58:33. > :58:35.first steps in moving forward. This is not training our young people

:58:36. > :58:41.simply in new methods of building, but engaging the older members in

:58:42. > :58:46.training them as well. I will conclude with this, I am conscious

:58:47. > :58:51.that you are giving BBI. The warm home scheme, these really do make

:58:52. > :58:58.you difference to the quality of homes. It is surprisingly how many

:58:59. > :59:02.homes in Northern Ireland did not have a ten year warranty and a lack

:59:03. > :59:07.of insulation and other things. That shows to me there has been a beer

:59:08. > :59:13.minimal standards. Not every home is built on a good standard. More needs

:59:14. > :59:23.to be done. It is skills and training. It must be for the benefit

:59:24. > :59:26.of families UK wide. I am very happy to have the opportunity of talking

:59:27. > :59:29.about something I have been writing about for most of my career and I

:59:30. > :59:34.would like to say that I can curb an hundred percent with my honourable

:59:35. > :59:40.friend 's on the issues that have been covered. -- I concur. I would

:59:41. > :59:45.like to challenge the honourable gentleman proposing that all modern

:59:46. > :59:51.ugly design. It is not a quitter everybody, it is personal taste and

:59:52. > :59:59.we should remember that the 60s gave us off all buildings but also

:00:00. > :00:04.amazing Estates, dressing and Gardens, and of course Grenfell

:00:05. > :00:08.Tower, which is amazingly still standing despite of what happened

:00:09. > :00:12.there. The structure is there, it was solidly built and some of those

:00:13. > :00:22.buildings could continue forever. It is interesting witnessing how the

:00:23. > :00:25.debate has gone from design to construction quality. I have new

:00:26. > :00:32.builds in my patch, Portobello Square, which I have more casework

:00:33. > :00:39.from the older buildings than new buildings. It is appalling. Pounds

:00:40. > :00:45.break, is also suffering from poor construction quality, from people

:00:46. > :00:49.who have visited it recently. From Portobello to that area, we have the

:00:50. > :00:55.same problem. That must be addressed. When I was trying to deal

:00:56. > :00:58.with the development is down to what they can and cannot do. Planning

:00:59. > :01:09.officers came and they shook their heads...

:01:10. > :01:17.And seen good quality. In those? A very esteemed architectural

:01:18. > :01:20.journalist who has written widely abated in the press has told me

:01:21. > :01:29.about it. I have not visited that myself. Is she aware that there are

:01:30. > :01:37.many architects about -- in what one might call the ancienne regime.

:01:38. > :01:43.Despite the fact that many people who live there think it is great. I

:01:44. > :01:50.am talking about quality, not design. We are talking about what we

:01:51. > :01:53.can and cannot do with this new homes ombudsman Richard Deeley is a

:01:54. > :02:04.good idea that there should be another level of monitoring. --

:02:05. > :02:11.ombudsman which I think is a good idea. There is no proper enforcement

:02:12. > :02:16.on quality at that level and there should be. Before you get to an

:02:17. > :02:22.ombudsman there should be building enforcement officers who can come

:02:23. > :02:26.and before a building collapses or a ceiling collapses and looks at the

:02:27. > :02:33.quality of that. All of this is to do with local Government funding and

:02:34. > :02:39.the funding formulas of how buildings are put together and where

:02:40. > :02:43.they have to make cost savings as we have heard recently. That is for

:02:44. > :02:48.another day. We have two review the entire way that design and build has

:02:49. > :03:00.diminished, the quality of how the buildings are delivered.

:03:01. > :03:04.I congratulate the honourable gentleman for securing this debate

:03:05. > :03:09.on an important and timely subject. I always welcome the opportunity to

:03:10. > :03:16.debate housing and house-building. I will try to focus on social housing,

:03:17. > :03:20.affordable housing, which I think the Labour Party is doing as well.

:03:21. > :03:24.The most important thing about housing policy is ensuring that we

:03:25. > :03:27.have an adequate supply of safe housing, which is what the SNP

:03:28. > :03:37.Scottish Government is doing. The MP for Glasgow's East End, following

:03:38. > :03:44.the footsteps of John Weekley, MP for Shettleston, 1922-1930, upon

:03:45. > :03:51.being appointed Health Ministry he tried to tackle the housing crisis

:03:52. > :03:58.at the time. It allowed central Government to provide subsidies to

:03:59. > :04:01.build housing. As a result, by 1933, 500,000 council homes had been built

:04:02. > :04:08.in the UK. That housing legacy lives on today. Parkhead Housing

:04:09. > :04:16.Association is celebrating its 45th anniversary today and it will be

:04:17. > :04:24.hosting the John Weekley lecture. I mention that because last week the

:04:25. > :04:26.leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Ruth Davidson,

:04:27. > :04:30.suggested the Scottish Government should build more new towns in

:04:31. > :04:35.Scotland to ease the housing shortage in the country. I was not

:04:36. > :04:39.alone in being taken aback by that rank hypocrisy of a Conservative

:04:40. > :04:43.politician lecturing us on the need to invest more in social housing not

:04:44. > :04:47.least because a Conservative Government under the stewardship of

:04:48. > :04:53.Margaret Thatcher sort of vast swathes of social housing, worse

:04:54. > :04:57.still the social housing stock was not replaced, that left generation Y

:04:58. > :05:01.struggling to get social housing, squeeze them into the private

:05:02. > :05:06.sector. Before moving the substance of today's to beat title it would be

:05:07. > :05:09.remiss not to highlight the excellent work being undertaken by

:05:10. > :05:13.the Scottish Government to build good quality affordable housing in

:05:14. > :05:18.our communities. I mentioned mismanagement of housing stock by

:05:19. > :05:22.the Government in the 1980s, and the initial development of devolution

:05:23. > :05:32.did not improve this, with the Lib Dem administration, since 2007 under

:05:33. > :05:38.the SNP has come on leaps and bounds, ?590 million available this

:05:39. > :05:46.year to improve supply of affordable housing, ?18 million, 2016-2017.

:05:47. > :05:49.Because of action we have maintained higher build rates and lower price

:05:50. > :05:55.inflation unlike the situation in England. If we had built up English

:05:56. > :06:00.rates since 2007 we would have 20,000 less affordable homes. In

:06:01. > :06:06.2009 we introduced council House building and since then have

:06:07. > :06:15.delivered 7500 council homes. Between 2003-2007 Labour in

:06:16. > :06:22.Government built six council houses in the entire parliament. We are

:06:23. > :06:31.investing in affordable housing. A 76% increase. 35,000 of the 50,000

:06:32. > :06:37.target will be for social rent. That is a 75% increase. I mention this

:06:38. > :06:41.because our large part of the debate has been focused on the private

:06:42. > :06:45.sector but I would like in my capacity as the third party

:06:46. > :06:47.representative from the SNP to bring Westminster back to looking at

:06:48. > :06:53.investment in social housing as well. We are determined to

:06:54. > :07:01.accelerate housing supply across all sectors, quality homes that fit

:07:02. > :07:08.local needs. Mid market rent offer to alternative properties. Increased

:07:09. > :07:15.housing subsidies by ?14,000 for social and affordable homes for

:07:16. > :07:20.rent. In preparing for the debate I was pleased to come across the

:07:21. > :07:25.regulator 's national report which states the average satisfaction of

:07:26. > :07:37.the quality of homes has increased. I want to pay tribute to CCG which

:07:38. > :07:43.provides kit homes in the Dalmarnock area, 700 homes about one year ago.

:07:44. > :07:49.While Ruth Davidson and the Conservatives were polishing their

:07:50. > :07:54.brass necks, we got on with the job of building for communities. I want

:07:55. > :07:59.to talk about housing design. This debate focuses on policy which is a

:08:00. > :08:03.devolved competence. This is a different dimension to the debate. I

:08:04. > :08:07.would commend to the House and I have left a copy in the library, the

:08:08. > :08:14.documents published by the Scottish Government in June this year.

:08:15. > :08:17.Colleagues will be announcing this, I would suspect there would be

:08:18. > :08:22.something in terms of planning legislation which is long overdue

:08:23. > :08:26.and welcome. One suggestion in that document is the suggestion that

:08:27. > :08:31.local development plan should be considered over a 10-year period

:08:32. > :08:36.rather than a five-year period. Another aspect I want to introduce

:08:37. > :08:42.from the Scottish point of view is ten and stop properties. Aberdeen is

:08:43. > :08:46.famous for its granite buildings. Glasgow is famous for sandstone

:08:47. > :08:51.tenements. Many of these buildings are at an age where they require a

:08:52. > :08:54.lot of attention. I hope that the Government in Scotland, local

:08:55. > :09:02.authorities are factoring this into their plans as well as investing in

:09:03. > :09:06.new housing supply. Summing up, when I came to this debate, the point

:09:07. > :09:12.about a new homes ombudsman is pertinent. Last night I attended a

:09:13. > :09:17.public meeting in my constituency and the honourable lady made a point

:09:18. > :09:21.about belly. Too often we see some of the house-builders week promises

:09:22. > :09:26.to communities and they are no longer held accountable for that.

:09:27. > :09:33.That is why I want to see housing associations. Broom House and

:09:34. > :09:39.Eastfield 's, builders have made promises that are not necessarily

:09:40. > :09:42.been covered, and ombudsman is something we need to pursue.

:09:43. > :09:52.Excellent speeches from the honourable gentleman from Cambridge.

:09:53. > :09:56.I agreed with the points from the honourable member from Dulwich. It

:09:57. > :10:04.is good to see this focus on tackling the housing crisis. The

:10:05. > :10:13.honourable member for Weston-Super-Mare, I was having a

:10:14. > :10:19.chat in the tearoom, everybody has a perception of the House, a detached

:10:20. > :10:24.House, a bungalow, the entire point about building up and not out,

:10:25. > :10:28.absolutely worth looking at. As a new member here, looking at moving

:10:29. > :10:33.into a flat, I have looked at various parts of London, interested

:10:34. > :10:41.to see more developments where growing up down out, not necessarily

:10:42. > :10:45.the case in Glasgow. The honourable member spoke about looking up. I was

:10:46. > :10:51.intelligent to come to Glasgow because we are a city that is

:10:52. > :10:56.renowned for looking up. I pay tribute to the work of the

:10:57. > :11:01.honourable member for the work he does on healthy homes. I want to

:11:02. > :11:05.conclude by saying that today's debate, I started talking about John

:11:06. > :11:09.Wheatley, I am confident that in Scotland we are tackling the legacy

:11:10. > :11:11.of lack of investment in housing, but I would finish with a word of

:11:12. > :11:17.advice from colleagues here in England. We need to look at

:11:18. > :11:20.abolishing the right to buy. It is not popular in this Parliament. We

:11:21. > :11:25.did it a couple of years ago and it is bearing fruit in Scotland. It is

:11:26. > :11:29.very difficult to build more homes, get people into social housing, when

:11:30. > :11:34.you sell off that social housing, it is a conversation that people had to

:11:35. > :11:38.happen in this building. We need to identify with John Wheatley,

:11:39. > :11:44.ultimately. I congratulate the honourable

:11:45. > :11:53.member. It is an important debates. A lot of what he had to say creates

:11:54. > :12:02.a consensus across this chamber. And across these nations of hours. There

:12:03. > :12:05.was some credible contribution is all around, there is a wealth of

:12:06. > :12:11.experience from the members who spoke. I will not mention every

:12:12. > :12:14.constituency at this stage. But there were some very serious point

:12:15. > :12:22.is that the Minister will take on board. No serious debate can begin

:12:23. > :12:27.without as recognising that we are in a bad place at the moment. Every

:12:28. > :12:31.member who has spoken has illustrated with in their speech the

:12:32. > :12:38.fact that things are not going in the way they should be. That is

:12:39. > :12:45.important to recognise. We are doing much to institutionalise significant

:12:46. > :12:47.change. Houses are homes, they are part of the communities in which

:12:48. > :12:53.people make their lives and we have got to do better than we are doing

:12:54. > :12:57.now. I would add a couple of cautions. The first point is, it is

:12:58. > :13:00.worth recalling that almost everything that has been said,

:13:01. > :13:06.particularly about environmental impact of homes, noise insulation,

:13:07. > :13:11.applies just as much to the existing built stock. The bulk of homes that

:13:12. > :13:18.will be around in 20 years' time are already in existence, 80% of them

:13:19. > :13:21.already exist. We have got to do something about retrofitting to make

:13:22. > :13:32.existing homes the buildings that we want. Even if we are to see the

:13:33. > :13:37.building boom that we await, there are going to be some real impact.

:13:38. > :13:44.One of those impacts is something we have seen in the past, that when it

:13:45. > :13:47.is a housing boom, the quality of the Elders, the constructors, does

:13:48. > :13:54.not keep pace with the scale. There is an issue that this Government is

:13:55. > :14:00.not addressing which is the nature of the ageing workforce, and coupled

:14:01. > :14:04.with that, the lack of adequate training places for younger people,

:14:05. > :14:07.and not so young people coming into construction. That has got to be

:14:08. > :14:15.dealt with if we are to make sure we have got the kind of policy -- kind

:14:16. > :14:20.of quality constructors that will deliver homes in the future and

:14:21. > :14:26.retrofit homes of the past. The member Fred Kensington and Chelsea

:14:27. > :14:30.Council unless we have adequate funding of local authorities and

:14:31. > :14:35.those parts of our local authorities building control and planning, which

:14:36. > :14:38.have been cats, these have been cats across these nations of hours

:14:39. > :14:43.because of the austerity budget, then we are not going to see the

:14:44. > :14:47.type of ongoing control that we need to guarantee that the build for the

:14:48. > :15:01.future avoids the mistakes of the past. I would also like to make an

:15:02. > :15:06.obvious point, that we cannot allow first class and second-class

:15:07. > :15:16.housing. Tenants have got to be housed in the same quality by way of

:15:17. > :15:21.design. That is part of the background to the conversation we

:15:22. > :15:27.are having. There are some real challenges for the Government. But

:15:28. > :15:31.we are to look at the issues around design, the issues of high quality

:15:32. > :15:36.homes, Government has a responsibility to set up standards

:15:37. > :15:44.and framework. Good design does mean ecstatically pleasing. I agree there

:15:45. > :15:47.is nothing intrinsically wrong with building up, although like

:15:48. > :15:52.everything it is a question of whether the design of building up is

:15:53. > :15:55.of a standard we would accept. The honourable member Fred Kensington

:15:56. > :16:02.and Chelsea Council eight, let us not be so concerned with replicating

:16:03. > :16:06.the past that we failed to take advantage of what the future can

:16:07. > :16:10.offer us. There are amazing buildings going up all around this

:16:11. > :16:13.country that would have been impossible, but new building

:16:14. > :16:18.technology has come in to a load more interesting buildings.

:16:19. > :16:28.I think he is saying we should not allow tragedies like Grenfell Tower

:16:29. > :16:31.sway us against the other advantages of building higher, providing it is

:16:32. > :16:37.done any sensible weight with the right standards and right design.

:16:38. > :16:42.Indeed, but if I can repeat the points. We already have a building

:16:43. > :16:46.stock of homes in the sky. I am old enough to remember we are going to

:16:47. > :16:51.build a vertical streets. I gave away my age when I said that. People

:16:52. > :16:55.live in vertical streets and whether those that exist now or the future,

:16:56. > :17:02.we need to make sure they are fit and proper homes for the future. We

:17:03. > :17:10.have to take some of the challenges of new builds. I was involved when

:17:11. > :17:13.greater Manchester was going through its process of looking at the

:17:14. > :17:21.spatial framework for the future. One of the things that was obvious

:17:22. > :17:26.there, there is some nimbyism in people's objections, the legitimate

:17:27. > :17:30.objections they have is that when they see the development is not

:17:31. > :17:36.going to have the infrastructure and development that is fundamental. Not

:17:37. > :17:42.simply the new community that is being built, but those are

:17:43. > :17:49.legitimate whether we have the transport links, local schools, the

:17:50. > :17:54.facilities, medical facilities, access to the world of work. Those

:17:55. > :18:00.are the things that make real amenities work properly. Within

:18:01. > :18:04.that, within the concept of local infrastructure, has the capacity to

:18:05. > :18:11.have within communities the ability for people to move homes as life

:18:12. > :18:13.changes. The honourable member for Basingstoke made the point for

:18:14. > :18:21.people with circumstances that change. An ageing couple with issues

:18:22. > :18:25.like disability, it is not impossible to adapt existing homes,

:18:26. > :18:30.but not impossible to keep them their own community or were they

:18:31. > :18:35.prefer to make that move. Designing communities around people's

:18:36. > :18:40.progressive needs is sensible. If I can concentrate on some issues. One

:18:41. > :18:43.of the issues that has been raised already is the question of space. I

:18:44. > :18:46.would say to the Minister that there is a real challenge that the

:18:47. > :18:54.Government has got to pick up. When we know this Brent Council building

:18:55. > :18:58.is seeing homes for a single person is offered with 16 square metres

:18:59. > :19:05.floor space, we have an issue. This is way below the national designed

:19:06. > :19:09.space standards, which is the Government brought in. I received

:19:10. > :19:13.the Minister those space standards were implemented nationally and made

:19:14. > :19:21.mandatory. They are unacceptable minimum. There is always the

:19:22. > :19:26.capacity to use adequate design for eroding that standard, that should

:19:27. > :19:30.be firmly lodged with the local planning authority, the guarantor of

:19:31. > :19:42.the safeguard that we are not seeing developers overreaching themselves.

:19:43. > :19:47.If I can turn to the question... Quite often these space standards

:19:48. > :19:51.are being eroded, it is consistent with other property use, office

:19:52. > :19:57.space been converted into homes, retail space been converted into

:19:58. > :20:01.homes. The Minister needs to look harder blocking that loophole if we

:20:02. > :20:09.are to prevent these ridiculously small homes being built. I will say

:20:10. > :20:18.is more thing about section one 06. I was amused about seeing recently

:20:19. > :20:24.an advert that was put forward by a local company called section 106

:20:25. > :20:29.profit. In the advert they say to would-be developers, do I really

:20:30. > :20:36.have to pay or provide affordable housing's Big Horn to talk about

:20:37. > :20:44.what their owner -- they go on to talk about what they can do.

:20:45. > :20:47.Affordable housing contribution was demanded by Westminster Council was

:20:48. > :20:51.reduced to inhale contribution. They go on to say to the would-be

:20:52. > :20:55.developer, the final point of the promises you can go on holiday with

:20:56. > :20:59.the money you have saved. That is not a responsible use of what the

:21:00. > :21:07.section is there to provide. The Minister has got to look again and

:21:08. > :21:10.making the process of the section transparent but also enforceable by

:21:11. > :21:16.the local authorities. In the end, if we're going to have the homes of

:21:17. > :21:21.the future that the honourable member is demanding and is writes up

:21:22. > :21:25.to demand, and so are other colleagues, we have to have the

:21:26. > :21:30.capacity for our local authorities to say to developers that those

:21:31. > :21:34.developments must be of an acceptable standard and they have

:21:35. > :21:43.the power to control the rogue builder or rogue developer. Time

:21:44. > :21:49.allowing to leave a moment for the Motion to wind up. The matter rests

:21:50. > :21:53.with you. Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your

:21:54. > :21:58.chairmanship for the first time in this Parliament. Can I congratulate

:21:59. > :22:02.my honourable friend for securing this debate on a new housing design.

:22:03. > :22:05.My honourable friend has been a long-standing advocate of high

:22:06. > :22:09.quality development and is passionate about the subject and

:22:10. > :22:13.that has come through clearly today and on the media. All members have

:22:14. > :22:19.spoken with passion on white design is important. We all acknowledge

:22:20. > :22:24.that it is critical we build more homes and our housing white paper

:22:25. > :22:29.sets out how we intend to to tackle this challenge. Just as important as

:22:30. > :22:32.building more homes is the need to insure they are good quality and

:22:33. > :22:37.well-designed and respond positively to the local context. Around the

:22:38. > :22:41.country, there have been some fantastic examples of good design in

:22:42. > :22:47.new house-building and a number of colleagues appointed those out. We

:22:48. > :22:50.can also point to soulless developments that destroy the

:22:51. > :22:56.character of the local area. This is something I feel we must change. The

:22:57. > :23:00.Government has put in place a robust framework that promotes and supports

:23:01. > :23:04.high-quality design. Both the National planning policy framework

:23:05. > :23:08.and our planning guidance emphasises the importance of good design and

:23:09. > :23:11.provide advice on planning processes and tools which local planning

:23:12. > :23:16.authorities can use to help achieve this aim. Over the months ahead, the

:23:17. > :23:19.Government will be engaging with the housing industry to showcase good

:23:20. > :23:23.practice and develop new qualities that support that ambition. We know

:23:24. > :23:27.we must do more. The housing white paper contains a number of proposals

:23:28. > :23:30.to improve the polity and character of the development. We want to

:23:31. > :23:37.strengthen the national policy framework. To bring in an

:23:38. > :23:40.expectation that local planning documents should set a clear design

:23:41. > :23:47.expectations. This will provide greater certainty for applets what

:23:48. > :23:51.type of designs are acceptable. -- for applicants. We want to use the

:23:52. > :23:55.policy to strengthen the importance of pre-application discussions. A

:23:56. > :23:59.means to encourage more value discussion between amenities,

:24:00. > :24:03.developers and local authorities. The Government also has a longer

:24:04. > :24:10.term ambition to support the development of digital platforms on

:24:11. > :24:15.design. My honourable friend talked about a number of surveys in his

:24:16. > :24:17.remarks and he concluded that people would support the building of homes

:24:18. > :24:24.if they are well-designed and in keeping with the local area. Of

:24:25. > :24:27.course, it is important that local authorities and developers work with

:24:28. > :24:30.communities to ensure they get the quality of new housing development

:24:31. > :24:34.that they want. There are a range of tools in place to engage local

:24:35. > :24:39.community, both when preparing plans and at the planning application

:24:40. > :24:44.stage. Yet I know amenity engagement is far too inconsistent. Far too

:24:45. > :24:51.often, local people you about the housing schemes late in the day. Of

:24:52. > :24:53.course, there are also good examples where engagement works and the

:24:54. > :25:00.honourable member for Cambridge talked about the toolkit and there

:25:01. > :25:04.are others. Our housing white paper proposals will go a step further, to

:25:05. > :25:09.help make sure local communities are not left behind. I do see

:25:10. > :25:13.neighbourhood planning, a number of colleagues have mentioned, as an

:25:14. > :25:18.invaluable tool to encourage local engagement. Our plans driven by

:25:19. > :25:24.local people with a vested interest in the quality of design for the

:25:25. > :25:27.place you live in. Since 2012, over 2200 groups have started the

:25:28. > :25:34.neighbourhood planning process in areas covering 30 million people. Of

:25:35. > :25:40.course, in some areas, the groups are keen to ensure the good design

:25:41. > :25:43.does happen in practice. For example, the plan for Bristol old

:25:44. > :25:47.market quarter sets her design principles are the development of

:25:48. > :25:52.key sites to ensure new buildings make a valuable contribution to the

:25:53. > :25:54.character of the neighbourhood. The Government recognises the effort

:25:55. > :25:59.neighbourhood planning groups makes and that is why we are supporting

:26:00. > :26:02.them with funding. The housing white paper sets out a commitment to

:26:03. > :26:07.further funding for neighbourhood planning groups in this Parliament.

:26:08. > :26:11.We are committed to providing ?25 million of funding to boost the

:26:12. > :26:15.capacity of local authorities 43 year period starting this year and

:26:16. > :26:22.this will open up opportunities to support design resources to grips.

:26:23. > :26:33.-- to neighbourhood planning groups. Turning to the issue of the

:26:34. > :26:40.ombudsman, we are... But, of course, it is the case that according to the

:26:41. > :26:42.latest survey, 84% of new home buyers would recommend their builder

:26:43. > :26:50.to a friend and this figure has fallen steadily from 90% in the last

:26:51. > :26:53.four years. 16% of new home buyers would not recommend their builder.

:26:54. > :26:57.In any other market, this would spell the end of the most cruelly

:26:58. > :27:02.performing companies. This has really been the case in the House

:27:03. > :27:05.building sector. I went to make it clear to colleagues that I am having

:27:06. > :27:09.a set of discussions with the developers and I made this point

:27:10. > :27:18.them as well for the need to improve quality and design. The commission

:27:19. > :27:25.survey, conducted for the home builders Federation, that told them

:27:26. > :27:28.that 67% of buyers would prefer not to or are unlikely to buy the

:27:29. > :27:35.product of volume house-builders. Well, I think my honourable friend

:27:36. > :27:38.makes the point that customer satisfaction is key and home-buyers

:27:39. > :27:44.need to step up to the plate. The housing white paper sets out the

:27:45. > :27:50.Government plan to diversify the housing market, improving the

:27:51. > :27:58.quality and honourable members have talked about custom buildings and

:27:59. > :28:06.the importance of small and medium-sized builders as well. There

:28:07. > :28:12.are of course mechanisms in place for redress and a number of

:28:13. > :28:17.colleagues are clocked about this, such as the consumer code from home

:28:18. > :28:23.builders. I have been encouraged by the industry's responds to last

:28:24. > :28:29.year's report on more homes and fewer complaints. The working group

:28:30. > :28:33.was set up and the home builders and the working group has commissioned

:28:34. > :28:37.an independent report into consumer redress and this should come forward

:28:38. > :28:42.and the next few weeks. I will review the report and I would also

:28:43. > :28:47.say that I will consider my honourable friend's call for a new

:28:48. > :28:53.home is ombudsman. My colleagues have raised a number of points, I

:28:54. > :29:01.will respond on those. The report for the women's inequalities

:29:02. > :29:06.committee, we expect a response and will respond next month. Colleagues

:29:07. > :29:10.have also raised an issue about space and, of course, as the

:29:11. > :29:15.honourable member for Dulwich and West Norwood and Rochdale will know

:29:16. > :29:17.we have committed to reviewing the space standards because of the

:29:18. > :29:25.feedback we have got from the sector. The member for Western Wall

:29:26. > :29:31.have talked about building out. Will be addressing the school for high

:29:32. > :29:38.density housing. Can I just end by saying that the Government will

:29:39. > :29:40.continue to work with industry, local community, developers and all

:29:41. > :29:43.those with an interest in the quality of new homes to drive up

:29:44. > :29:49.standards and create the type of places that people want to live in.

:29:50. > :29:52.It is clear, members here, they want it to happen, their constituents

:29:53. > :30:00.want it to happen and I want it to happen. Can I just press the

:30:01. > :30:05.Minister on this? He said the Government's intention is to review

:30:06. > :30:09.the standards, that is welcome. The suspicion, I'm afraid, as this is a

:30:10. > :30:13.review that will reduce those standards rather than enforce those

:30:14. > :30:17.standards. Will parts of the review be about making these obligatory

:30:18. > :30:25.across the length and breadth of the appropriate domain?

:30:26. > :30:36.We are not talking about a race to the bottom and we want new

:30:37. > :30:43.developments to be well designed. Thank you for those comments. It

:30:44. > :30:47.would be a good idea at the idea on the ombudsman could be brought

:30:48. > :30:54.forward. He also talked about Regis for those that can get it. There are

:30:55. > :30:56.many good builders out there but if the Government could highlight those

:30:57. > :31:01.that are not that would put pressure on them and give people choice. I

:31:02. > :31:08.want to thank all honourable members. It is interesting that when

:31:09. > :31:13.it comes to architecture, beauty is very much in the eye of the

:31:14. > :31:17.beholder, but if we can take local people with us, then we have a

:31:18. > :31:21.greater chance that they can support developments because we can take out

:31:22. > :31:26.a lot of the objections for further developments. We need quality homes.

:31:27. > :31:30.We talked this morning and this afternoon about the need for a good

:31:31. > :31:35.insulation, good building standards, building quality homes for the

:31:36. > :31:40.future. I believe we can do that and I welcome the Minister's remarks.

:31:41. > :31:48.This House has considered good housing design. As many of

:31:49. > :31:59.dependency the contrary now. The IE 's macro habits. -- the Ayes have

:32:00. > :32:14.it. If members could move quickly please

:32:15. > :32:40.we can start the next debate. I beg to move that this House has

:32:41. > :32:46.considered the combined Fire and police service in Northamptonshire.

:32:47. > :32:51.I welcome the Minister to his place. I thank Mr Speaker for giving me the

:32:52. > :32:55.honour of having this debate today on an important issue for my

:32:56. > :33:01.constituents in Kettering and across the county of Northamptonshire. The

:33:02. > :33:06.title of the debate is probably not really very accurate and that is

:33:07. > :33:19.probably my fault because we are not actually talking about a combined

:33:20. > :33:24.fire and police service, but I do hope that one day we will have a

:33:25. > :33:33.completely combined fire and police service and would urge the Minister

:33:34. > :33:39.to consider that. But any constituents that might be tuned in

:33:40. > :33:45.to today's proceedings, Northamptonshire is a county of over

:33:46. > :33:49.720,000 people, we have got a single police force and a single Fire and

:33:50. > :33:52.Rescue Service that have coterminous boundaries, which is quite helpful

:33:53. > :33:57.when you are thinking of joining these two things together. That

:33:58. > :34:03.picture for policing and fire and risk is changing and has changed

:34:04. > :34:10.rapidly in the past decade. Four fire and you, demand for fire

:34:11. > :34:18.related emergencies has increased by 50%, -- reduced by 50%, compared to

:34:19. > :34:23.a national figure of 40%, Fire and Rescue Service to diversify into

:34:24. > :34:28.more proactive activities, they now provide first response activities

:34:29. > :34:39.with East Midlands Ambulance Service. On a recent visit, I was

:34:40. > :34:44.amazed and surprised to learn that 60% of the Fire Service calls are

:34:45. > :34:55.known for medical emergencies. The emphasis is on rescue as opposed to

:34:56. > :34:58.fire. The reason I attended the Fire and Rescue Service is that I have

:34:59. > :35:05.taken part in the parliamentary Fire Service scheme on two levels. One

:35:06. > :35:09.year I spent with the London Fire Brigade and the second year I spent

:35:10. > :35:15.with Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service. I have also

:35:16. > :35:21.completed two years with the parliamentary police service scheme,

:35:22. > :35:27.with the Northamptonshire Police force some years ago, but also as a

:35:28. > :35:32.special constable with British Transport Police. I placed great

:35:33. > :35:36.emphasis on talking to individual police officers, individual fire and

:35:37. > :35:40.rest officers, to find out what life was really like for them at an

:35:41. > :35:46.operational level. And I would like to place on record my thanks to all

:35:47. > :35:49.the wonderful police and Fire and Rescue Service we have in

:35:50. > :35:53.Northamptonshire. We are truly blessed as a county to have so many

:35:54. > :36:00.individuals with such dedication, resolution and resolve, who day in

:36:01. > :36:04.day out, week in week out, are prepared to serve the local public

:36:05. > :36:13.as best they can. The Northamptonshire Police have a

:36:14. > :36:29.budget of ?116 million. They have 1242 officers. 99 PCSOs, 488

:36:30. > :36:36.specials, 84 volunteers, they operate on 38 sites. The Fire and

:36:37. > :36:42.Rescue Service has a budget of ?24 million, 242 full-time firefighters,

:36:43. > :36:52.254 retained firefighters, 74 support staff, and operate off 24

:36:53. > :36:58.sites. In terms of the scale of the operations, they are quite

:36:59. > :37:02.different. But of course police officers and firefighters are

:37:03. > :37:06.actually attending many of the same incidents. And indeed, in the

:37:07. > :37:14.southern part of Northamptonshire, we now have two brutal intervention

:37:15. > :37:20.vehicles, which on one side are charged with Northamptonshire Police

:37:21. > :37:25.loverly, blue, yellow and white, and on the other side are badged with

:37:26. > :37:29.the Fire and Rescue Service loverly, yellow, red and white. On one side

:37:30. > :37:35.of the vehicle there is a police officer and on the other side there

:37:36. > :37:40.is a firefighter and they are going around in little parts of the county

:37:41. > :37:46.to respond to call outs and it is a very efficient way to manage

:37:47. > :37:50.resources of police and fire fighting. This is evidence, and I

:37:51. > :37:56.know the Minister will appreciate, of the boys and girls in the

:37:57. > :37:58.service, actually getting on with mixing up their operations to

:37:59. > :38:04.increase local efficiency regardless of what happens at this senior level

:38:05. > :38:07.in terms of Government. On the ground individual police officers

:38:08. > :38:13.and firefighters are already operating jointly in many cases. I

:38:14. > :38:20.would like to back 100% the business case presented to the Minister by

:38:21. > :38:24.the Police and Crime Commissioner Steven mauls, for Northamptonshire,

:38:25. > :38:27.that he become the police, fire and crime Commissioner for

:38:28. > :38:35.Northamptonshire. I will give way to my honourable friend.

:38:36. > :38:37.I am grateful. I am pleased that the Police and Crime Commissioner in

:38:38. > :38:43.Northamptonshire has taken up the opportunity to look at the

:38:44. > :38:46.Government's model of becoming a police, fire and crying Commissioner

:38:47. > :38:52.and which he joined me welcoming the news that this has happened in

:38:53. > :38:55.Staffordshire also. The consultation looking at the Police and Crime

:38:56. > :38:59.Commissioner kicking over the role of the fire authority will see

:39:00. > :39:02.greater collaboration and joint working.

:39:03. > :39:06.I am delighted to hear that positive news from Staffordshire. I know my

:39:07. > :39:11.honourable friend is developing a well-deserved reputation for being

:39:12. > :39:13.badly on top of local issues in her constituency. And I join her and

:39:14. > :39:18.welcoming the news from Staffordshire. I believe there are

:39:19. > :39:24.seven Police and Crime Commissioner 's who are now actively consulting

:39:25. > :39:30.on taking over Fire Service responsibilities. I very much hope

:39:31. > :39:33.that they will succeed and I would like Northamptonshire and

:39:34. > :39:37.Staffordshire and the five others to be successful role models for the

:39:38. > :39:43.other authorities around the country. Because it seems to me to

:39:44. > :39:48.make huge sense to deliver emergency services as joint up as possible. My

:39:49. > :39:53.understanding is that under the police and crime act 2017 which my

:39:54. > :39:55.honourable friend and I and the Minister supported, for options were

:39:56. > :40:01.given to Police and Crime Commissioner 's and local Fire and

:40:02. > :40:08.Rescue Authorities. Eg Key to collaborate with no change in

:40:09. > :40:12.governance. Police and Crime Commissioner taking place on the

:40:13. > :40:14.Fire and Rescue Authorities. The Police and Crime Commissioner

:40:15. > :40:23.actually become the Fire Commissioner as well. This services

:40:24. > :40:27.be combined. May I say to the Minister that ultimately I hope

:40:28. > :40:30.option for is delivered in Northamptonshire but I recognise

:40:31. > :40:36.that option three is the right place to be at the moment. Operationally,

:40:37. > :40:41.the police service and the Fire and Rescue Service will be two different

:40:42. > :40:45.organisations, but the police, fire and crying Commissioner, will be the

:40:46. > :40:52.head of both of those. While structurally separate, separate

:40:53. > :40:56.organisations, below the commission, as I have already evidence, on the

:40:57. > :41:05.ground, police officers and firefighters are increasingly

:41:06. > :41:11.working together. I think there are three fire - police - ambulance

:41:12. > :41:17.stations in Northamptonshire know. In Wellington that there is an all

:41:18. > :41:21.singing, all dancing, police, fire and ambulance station with all

:41:22. > :41:27.services together. Ultimately I think we should be ambitious, I

:41:28. > :41:33.would like to see a Northamptonshire- wide police, fire

:41:34. > :41:37.and angle and service dedicated to Northamptonshire. I don't see why

:41:38. > :41:41.East Midlands and blood service is to provide services to

:41:42. > :41:46.Northamptonshire. Police, fire and crying Commissioner is well able to

:41:47. > :41:50.run Ambulance Services locally. If the Minister ever feels he would

:41:51. > :41:56.like to pilot such an initiative may I invite him to Northamptonshire

:41:57. > :42:00.because I think we could persuade the Police and Crime Commissioner

:42:01. > :42:03.that this could be a good idea especially at the Fire Service is

:42:04. > :42:09.already providing 60% of its calls to medical emergencies. Both

:42:10. > :42:13.services will remain operationally distinct but increasingly there is

:42:14. > :42:17.lots of joint working. This does not mean that police officers will be

:42:18. > :42:21.putting out fires and does not mean that firefighters will have the

:42:22. > :42:26.power of arrest. It just means that they will work sensibly together.

:42:27. > :42:32.This is not a police takeover of the Fire Service. It is not a merger of

:42:33. > :42:38.the two. It is just a shared governance structure that should

:42:39. > :42:43.lead to joint decisions. I think this move, if approved by the

:42:44. > :42:46.Minister, will accelerate collaboration and better protect the

:42:47. > :42:51.front line, that under the existing models. At the moment the Fire

:42:52. > :42:55.Service as part of Northamptonshire County Council, and with the best

:42:56. > :42:59.will in the world, any Fire and Rescue Authorities within a county

:43:00. > :43:05.council structure is not going to get the funding certainty that could

:43:06. > :43:10.be provided by governance, by a separate police, fire and crime

:43:11. > :43:14.Commissioner. I am grateful to have the

:43:15. > :43:21.opportunity to intervene again. Does he also agree that by virtue of

:43:22. > :43:23.having a police, fire and crime Commissioner, we increase democratic

:43:24. > :43:27.accountability of the Fire Service by virtue of having the fire

:43:28. > :43:32.authority have got counsellors who are appointed to the authority, but

:43:33. > :43:37.they are not electorally accountable to the public? My honourable friend

:43:38. > :43:41.demonstrates that she has a wise head on young shoulders as this is

:43:42. > :43:44.the same argument in favour of police commissioners. Who knew who

:43:45. > :43:49.the members of the local police authority work? No one. Sometimes

:43:50. > :43:53.even members of the local police authority did not know and the same

:43:54. > :43:59.is true of the Fire and Rescue Authorities, therefore transparency,

:44:00. > :44:04.accountability, also more funding security uncertainty are big drivers

:44:05. > :44:09.behind this. I am pleased that local people in Northamptonshire basically

:44:10. > :44:14.agree. 1200 people have responded to the Police Commissioner's

:44:15. > :44:19.consultation, 61% are in favour, 92% of those working in the Fire and

:44:20. > :44:25.Rescue Service are in favour. They know that the proposals will deliver

:44:26. > :44:30.efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and also improvements in public

:44:31. > :44:34.safety, because of the increased funding certainty. These are

:44:35. > :44:38.impressive results from the consultation which have certainly

:44:39. > :44:42.impressed me, and I hope will impress the Minister. The business

:44:43. > :44:49.case is known on his desk. It requires this signature for this to

:44:50. > :44:53.be moved forward. If it gets his signature, with his distinguished

:44:54. > :45:00.hand, then this new change could come into effect from April 20 18.

:45:01. > :45:05.And I would urge the Minister to read the case, study the case, and

:45:06. > :45:10.approve it. Because I think Northamptonshire has demonstrated on

:45:11. > :45:15.the ground that police officers and firefighters are getting together to

:45:16. > :45:20.deliver sensible joint working, and now, the governance structure is

:45:21. > :45:26.catching up with that. If we can get the Home Office approval then over

:45:27. > :45:30.time move onto stage four, combining of both services together. The

:45:31. > :45:35.crucial thing about this is that it should not lead to any increased

:45:36. > :45:39.costs for the taxpayer because basically the money given to the

:45:40. > :45:42.county council now to fund the Fire and Rescue Service will be given to

:45:43. > :45:47.the police, fire and crime Commissioner, that there will be

:45:48. > :45:50.transparency on people's council tax bills because there will be a

:45:51. > :45:57.separate line for the fire authority presets. That I think will improve

:45:58. > :46:05.transparency and accountability. Thank you for your patience with me

:46:06. > :46:11.today. I hope I have outlined my 100% support for these proposals. I

:46:12. > :46:16.nor the Minister is diligent, assiduous, very much on top of his

:46:17. > :46:22.game and he will take these proposals seriously, and can I say,

:46:23. > :46:24.if he agrees with the local Police and Crime Commissioner and approves

:46:25. > :46:28.the business case in Northamptonshire, we are up for the

:46:29. > :46:29.challenge to deliver the country's best combined police and Fire

:46:30. > :46:35.Service. It is a great pleasure to serve

:46:36. > :46:43.under your chairmanship for the first time and to respond to this

:46:44. > :46:46.very welcome and timely debate from my right honourable friend. We came

:46:47. > :46:53.into the House in the same year and I know that back in 2005 and he has

:46:54. > :46:57.been a tireless champion of the interest of the people of Kettering.

:46:58. > :47:03.I am delighted to hear him stand up in the House today and expressed his

:47:04. > :47:10.support for the proposals coming from the Police and Crime

:47:11. > :47:14.Commissioner. I hear him urging me to go even further in terms of the

:47:15. > :47:18.ambition there. It is typical of him that in order to get the insight

:47:19. > :47:24.into the operating reality of the people serving his constituents, he

:47:25. > :47:28.should have invested his time in the schemes and being a special

:47:29. > :47:34.constable himself. I congratulate him on that. I also note the

:47:35. > :47:41.presence of the honourable member here. I hope to support him in

:47:42. > :47:45.registering what appears to be a consensus across Northamptonshire

:47:46. > :47:51.and popular support for this initiative, which to some degree, he

:47:52. > :47:56.himself reflected, reflects the ongoing reality on the ground at the

:47:57. > :48:02.moment. Northamptonshire is known to be in the vanguard of collaboration

:48:03. > :48:07.between the emergency services and I would like to place on record my

:48:08. > :48:11.congratulations and respect for those involved in that leadership

:48:12. > :48:16.that has been shown in Northamptonshire and this debate is

:48:17. > :48:21.very welcome. If I could give him some very immediate reinsurance

:48:22. > :48:25.about the Government's support to the principle of enabling Police and

:48:26. > :48:29.Crime Commissioner is to have greater involvement in fire

:48:30. > :48:34.governance. This goes beyond words. We have approved the first proposal

:48:35. > :48:40.from Essex and we are very encouraged to see about our dozen

:48:41. > :48:47.areas introducing proposals and I welcome the intervention from my

:48:48. > :48:52.honourable friend. I dozen areas have responded to the legislation

:48:53. > :48:56.that enables this and are actively developing proposals to take on

:48:57. > :49:01.governance for fire and rescue and as I have said, areas like

:49:02. > :49:09.Northamptonshire leading the way. We all know as MPs that public service,

:49:10. > :49:15.have done a very impressive job in terms of responding to the pressure

:49:16. > :49:18.to control costs and find savings. Many of them have embraced

:49:19. > :49:23.collaboration. It is easy to talk about but quite difficult to do in

:49:24. > :49:29.practice. We are keen to encourage leadership to go even further down

:49:30. > :49:33.that direction. Not just in the interests of better use of taxpayers

:49:34. > :49:40.money and finding efficiencies, but also to deliver a better service to

:49:41. > :49:43.the people we serve. In that context, I want to pay tribute to

:49:44. > :49:51.the Police and Crime Commissioner and to his team in two the proposals

:49:52. > :49:54.that give rise to this debate. They have worked at such case, they have

:49:55. > :49:59.submitted a proposal. I have to correct something he said. The

:50:00. > :50:03.proposal is not sitting on my desk, it is sitting in the bowels of the

:50:04. > :50:07.Home Office being processed by officials. It has only just come in.

:50:08. > :50:15.When it comes to me, I take a view, it goes to the Home Secretary. That

:50:16. > :50:21.is the process. That means that I am restricted about what I can say on

:50:22. > :50:27.the detailed case because I will -- but I will. We will be robust in

:50:28. > :50:31.testing it. The honourable gentleman will want the reassurance that I won

:50:32. > :50:38.that it is sensibly rooted in good economic 's and will result in a

:50:39. > :50:41.better service for his constituents and leaves Northamptonshire County

:50:42. > :50:48.Council in a solid financial base as well. There are various tests that

:50:49. > :50:55.the statute requires us to make of this. It is in the system and will

:50:56. > :51:00.be processed as quickly as possible. I am a bit restricted about what I

:51:01. > :51:07.can say, except for I note his message to get on with it. Thank you

:51:08. > :51:11.for giving way. He will welcome, I'm sure, the fact that the county

:51:12. > :51:14.council, unlike some county authorities, is supporting this

:51:15. > :51:18.case. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet in Northamptonshire,

:51:19. > :51:21.if that gives them any courage meant. I am grateful for my

:51:22. > :51:28.honourable friend for that intervention. It is an important

:51:29. > :51:33.point. It is easy to talk about but not that easy to do. Particularly in

:51:34. > :51:37.terms of the work that that the county council has to do with the

:51:38. > :51:43.Police and Crime Commissioner to do some of the data and segregation

:51:44. > :51:48.that he is talking about. It is very consecrated to do. He is quite

:51:49. > :51:53.right, some county councils have set the face against this. At the right

:51:54. > :51:55.to place on record my respect for Northamptonshire County Council for

:51:56. > :52:06.the leadership they have shown in cooperating with this complex task

:52:07. > :52:11.very fully. What I would, with your permission, chair, draw out key

:52:12. > :52:21.themes by way of conclusion to the debate. First, I should of course

:52:22. > :52:28.join my honourable friend in placing my thanks to the Government of the

:52:29. > :52:35.hard work and service of the police across the country for the work they

:52:36. > :52:41.do on our behalf. There are operational aspects that are common

:52:42. > :52:46.so it must make sense to explore where these services can be joined

:52:47. > :52:49.up more effectively to maximise capability and resilience and

:52:50. > :52:54.everything that he talked about in his remarks. There are some

:52:55. > :52:59.fantastic examples of collaboration out there, joint control rooms,

:53:00. > :53:03.multi-agency prevention teams, support capability. The Government

:53:04. > :53:08.has invested it in ?1 million in local bluelight collaboration logic.

:53:09. > :53:14.We're not sitting here saying, get on with it, we are actively trying

:53:15. > :53:21.to support that. Four and have million pounds for police

:53:22. > :53:25.intervention... Perhaps we are not in danger of going over the time

:53:26. > :53:30.limit, I just want to intervene again and see to the Minister that

:53:31. > :53:36.we are blessed in Northamptonshire, too, with two outstanding senior

:53:37. > :53:41.officers. The Chief Constable is fantastic. Very much down to earth,

:53:42. > :53:46.hands-on, he knows all of his officers. The chief fire officer,

:53:47. > :53:50.likewise, has years of experience, knows all the boys and girls in the

:53:51. > :53:55.Fire Service and the two are determined to work together to make

:53:56. > :53:58.operation work. Whatever the Government structure might be. I

:53:59. > :54:02.think the changes to the Government structure will just help them do

:54:03. > :54:08.what they are already doing. Again, I thank him for his intervention.

:54:09. > :54:12.I'm sure that will be noted in both those offices and in this place we

:54:13. > :54:16.do not do enough to celebrate and recognise individuals that two

:54:17. > :54:22.outstanding work inside the public service. I have in the course of my

:54:23. > :54:27.process of engagement and police forces, spoken to the police chief

:54:28. > :54:31.on the phone and I look forward to visiting Northamptonshire and

:54:32. > :54:36.meeting him and the fire chief in person. Not least because it is very

:54:37. > :54:42.clear that it has been at the forefront of many collaboration

:54:43. > :54:47.initiatives. Joint committee prevention work, which he brought to

:54:48. > :54:55.life in his speech. I am very encouraged that PC malt has made the

:54:56. > :55:02.collaboration of the services a main theme in his police and crime plan

:55:03. > :55:08.and his conviction about the service transformation is very evident and

:55:09. > :55:12.very encouraging to us. While in the good work is going on in some local

:55:13. > :55:16.areas, it is fair to say and I think my honourable friend alluded to

:55:17. > :55:23.this, the national picture is patchy and what be done. In terms of reform

:55:24. > :55:29.of the Fire Service, in some ways the ambition with which policing has

:55:30. > :55:32.been transformed since 2010, much the credit of police leadership

:55:33. > :55:37.across the country, can serve as something of a model the changes we

:55:38. > :55:42.want to see in fire. The Home Office now being responsible for this area,

:55:43. > :55:46.we are able to support what we hope to see as a continuous improvement

:55:47. > :55:50.of Fire And Rescue Services enabling it to be more accountable, effective

:55:51. > :55:55.and professional. My honourable friend pointed out that the scope,

:55:56. > :55:59.very important scope within these reforms of Government to introduce

:56:00. > :56:06.much greater transparency and accountability, not least around

:56:07. > :56:10.funding streams into Fire Services, which post Grenfell is something

:56:11. > :56:14.that is going to be increasingly interested in. To support the Fire

:56:15. > :56:21.Service along this journey, we are establishing an independent

:56:22. > :56:26.inspection regime to be delivered by the joint Inspectorate of police and

:56:27. > :56:30.fire. We are also making progress in setting up a fire professional

:56:31. > :56:35.standards body. We want the bulk of the diet reform programme to only be

:56:36. > :56:38.delivered by the service itself. We won the Fire Service to get better

:56:39. > :56:43.deals with buying equipment, there is still a lot of scope to improve

:56:44. > :56:46.in that area and we believe that the true commercial transformation and

:56:47. > :56:53.radical improvement process is needed. We also want the servers to

:56:54. > :56:59.look at workforce reform, increasing diversity in terms of conditions. My

:57:00. > :57:03.honourable friend was, I think, made a very good point about the way the

:57:04. > :57:09.police and crime commissioners have developed in the consciousness of

:57:10. > :57:14.the public. Of course the system had before was sub optimal and hounds of

:57:15. > :57:16.accountability to the public. The Police and Crime Commissioner was a

:57:17. > :57:23.bold reform which is beginning to develop momentum, thanks not least

:57:24. > :57:30.to the intervention does -- individuals. They have shown great

:57:31. > :57:36.leadership. Examples like these that convince us that police and crime

:57:37. > :57:42.commissioners are there to support the collaboration and the fire

:57:43. > :57:45.reform agenda. In bringing together local police and fire under single

:57:46. > :57:52.leadership, we hope to see it driving through transformation that

:57:53. > :57:55.delivers a look at people. Improving transport it to, direct

:57:56. > :58:01.accountability and a renewed impulse to police and fire collaboration.

:58:02. > :58:10.That is why we went to PCC is to explore this opportunity. It is

:58:11. > :58:16.clearly not a transfer... It is not the only option to evolving PC

:58:17. > :58:23.season. They can request a seat on the local fire less rescue

:58:24. > :58:29.authority. There are options but I shall be very clear that where we

:58:30. > :58:33.have police and crime commissioners are convinced they have a strong

:58:34. > :58:38.business case, feel they have the public on their side, do we have the

:58:39. > :58:43.local authority on their side, they will have our support subject to the

:58:44. > :58:47.robustness of the business case. It is, in our view, up to local areas

:58:48. > :58:52.to decide what arrangements will work best for them. That is why the

:58:53. > :58:56.Government chose not to mandate their performance in fire

:58:57. > :58:59.governance, successful transformation has to involve local

:59:00. > :59:09.people and Tuesday Calder 's which is exactly what has happened as Toon

:59:10. > :59:12.Army in -- involve local people and that is likely what is happening in

:59:13. > :59:22.Northamptonshire. That is why we have encouraged early dialogue. The

:59:23. > :59:25.future they see fit their Fire and Rescue Service. Northamptonshire

:59:26. > :59:30.have shown that a constructive dialogue is possible and I think

:59:31. > :59:35.that is a model and you leadership that I would strongly urge other

:59:36. > :59:40.areas to follow. I am very happy to give way. I thank the Minister for

:59:41. > :59:45.his response. I will press him into an area that might be uncomfortable

:59:46. > :59:51.and off piste. Would you welcome innovative proposals that came

:59:52. > :59:57.forward from a county to go for the full Monty, to combine fire, police

:59:58. > :00:00.and ambulance with some kind of sensible countywide emergency

:00:01. > :00:05.provision, which I think would enjoy huge popular support. I know it is

:00:06. > :00:09.very, very early days. If someone would produce a sensible plan, is it

:00:10. > :00:14.something he feels the Home Office would look at? I thank him for the

:00:15. > :00:19.heads up that he was going to go off piste. What I would say is, we are

:00:20. > :00:25.operating in conditions that are very tough out there. It is a

:00:26. > :00:29.situation that requires outstanding leadership, it requires authorities,

:00:30. > :00:34.the system, the Home Office, the Government to be open to new

:00:35. > :00:39.proposals. This is an environment we need to innovate. My instinct is to

:00:40. > :00:42.always be open to new ideas. I will always be asking, is the local

:00:43. > :00:47.support for this and is there a business case? Is evidence to

:00:48. > :00:52.support we feel strongly that is an opportunity in terms of governance

:00:53. > :00:56.of emergency services, police and fire to go further and that is why

:00:57. > :01:02.we have enabled it through legislation. I am delighted that

:01:03. > :01:06.Northamptonshire are responding to that opportunity and I can assure

:01:07. > :01:10.you win the business case is released from the Home Office, I

:01:11. > :01:14.will process it as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I went to

:01:15. > :01:15.congratulate him on securing this debate and thank him for his

:01:16. > :01:26.approval. We will move to the new debate and

:01:27. > :01:59.allowed people 15 seconds for change over.

:02:00. > :02:06.Order, order, this is our one hour debate. There are five minutes for

:02:07. > :02:13.the two opposition leads and ten minutes for the Minister.

:02:14. > :02:20.Contributions from the backbenchers, six minutes each, but it may just be

:02:21. > :02:29.fired. Order, order. We now have the motion. Thank you. I am very pleased

:02:30. > :02:32.that it is the Minister for corporate responsibility responding

:02:33. > :02:35.to this debate today because having responded to the debate I held in

:02:36. > :02:40.the last parliament earlier this year, she will be familiar with the

:02:41. > :02:44.issues that I am losing. For the benefit of the record in this

:02:45. > :02:50.Parliament I want to leak up what it is that we are talking about here.

:02:51. > :02:56.Imagine you have spent years acquiring the skills to work on

:02:57. > :02:59.construction sites around the country, no one ever complained

:03:00. > :03:03.about the quality of your work, you happen to be an active member of

:03:04. > :03:06.your trade union, keen to ensure that you and your colleagues have a

:03:07. > :03:11.safe and pleasant working environment, nothing out of the

:03:12. > :03:15.ordinarily, and then on one occasion, you raised a serious

:03:16. > :03:18.health and safety concern, no small matter, given that an average of 39

:03:19. > :03:24.construction workers are killed at work every year in the UK, but ever

:03:25. > :03:31.since you raised that complaint, you have not been able to get work, that

:03:32. > :03:35.is what happens to thousands of construction workers for decades in

:03:36. > :03:39.this country. They were blacklisted and no one has ever been brought

:03:40. > :03:45.properly to big for it. I will give way. People who have been

:03:46. > :03:51.blacklisted in construction who have raised those issues of health and

:03:52. > :03:55.safety, far from being barred for employment, does he agree that they

:03:56. > :03:58.should be commended and saluted? Absolutely, I could not agree more

:03:59. > :04:02.and I will outline some of the things that people have done and

:04:03. > :04:08.campaigned on for justice on this matter. Blacklisting is the Sheedy,

:04:09. > :04:12.underhand practice of sharing information on workers without their

:04:13. > :04:16.knowledge, and then systematically denying them employment on that

:04:17. > :04:23.basis, on that basis of that information. These practices first

:04:24. > :04:27.hit the headlines in 2009 when the office of the information

:04:28. > :04:32.Commissioner raided the premises of a distributable organisation called

:04:33. > :04:35.the Consulting Association. When they that organisation they found a

:04:36. > :04:42.blacklist of over 3000 construction workers. The association was funded,

:04:43. > :04:49.and used for years, by over 40 of the countries biggest construction

:04:50. > :04:55.firms to vet employees. The association, set up in 1993, was the

:04:56. > :05:03.successor to another organisation called the Economic League. The

:05:04. > :05:07.construction companies feared the association detailed information

:05:08. > :05:12.about workers with vocals workers knowledge. Whenever they meet hiring

:05:13. > :05:16.decisions they checked the names of applicants against the list. If you

:05:17. > :05:20.were on it, you were usually refused work. You were denied the ability to

:05:21. > :05:26.do your job and provide for your family. Essentially the system

:05:27. > :05:31.facilitated the systematic victimisation and denial of work

:05:32. > :05:33.simply because workers had raised legitimate health and safety

:05:34. > :05:38.concerns in the past, or because they were a member of a trade union

:05:39. > :05:44.or a political party. It was and still is an outrage. And the nature

:05:45. > :05:51.of some of the information about people held on that blacklist, for

:05:52. > :05:53.example via a religion, National Insurance number, car registration,

:05:54. > :05:57.strongly suggests that the data on the list was collected with the

:05:58. > :06:02.collusion of the list and or security services. That is why it is

:06:03. > :06:07.fitting that the blacklist support group members, many of whom are

:06:08. > :06:11.here, have been granted core participant status into the inquiry

:06:12. > :06:16.into undercover policing. Those who suffered and are victims now have

:06:17. > :06:23.principal routes would be dressed. The employment relations act 1999,

:06:24. > :06:26.blacklist relations 2010, which no outlaws blacklisting, but that was

:06:27. > :06:30.too late for those who suffered at the hands of the consulting

:06:31. > :06:32.Association. There is the consolidation act 1992 which stops

:06:33. > :06:37.people being discriminated on the basis of being a member of the union

:06:38. > :06:40.and that is the Data Protection Act 1988 which can be used against those

:06:41. > :06:48.who abuse and misuse people's personal data. The late Ian Kay,

:06:49. > :06:55.chief officer of the consulting Association, was fined a paltry

:06:56. > :06:59.?5,000 after the raid. Because only later where the fines levied under

:07:00. > :07:08.that act substantially increased. I give way. My constituent was one of

:07:09. > :07:13.the plaintiffs to the recent case. Does my honourable friend agree that

:07:14. > :07:17.there is a strong case now for making blacklisting a criminal

:07:18. > :07:20.offence with strong sanctions including big fines and possible

:07:21. > :07:29.imprisonment? I wholeheartedly agree with my right honourable friend. He

:07:30. > :07:39.talks about the litigation. In July 2014, Balfour Beatty, brilliant, Sir

:07:40. > :07:44.Robert McAlpine, Vinci plc, who were all involved in the blacklisting and

:07:45. > :07:46.in funding the consulting Association, established a

:07:47. > :07:51.compensation scheme for individual workers affected by blacklisting and

:07:52. > :07:56.made an apology of sorts for what happened. But the scheme was

:07:57. > :07:59.unilaterally established without the agreements of the trade unions

:08:00. > :08:10.representing the workers, and other firms who were part of the Hall of

:08:11. > :08:15.shame, Taylor Woodrow, and others, did not sign up for the scheme. I

:08:16. > :08:20.want to thank my honourable friend forgiving way. This is an important

:08:21. > :08:24.issue because I represented blacklisted members in the High

:08:25. > :08:28.Court. Does he agree that no firm informed and historic blacklisting

:08:29. > :08:31.should be given a public contract until they demonstrate regret for

:08:32. > :08:36.their actions by supporting the public inquiry, offering the

:08:37. > :08:40.chilling to victims, and demonstrating that the recruitment

:08:41. > :08:42.processes are transparent and fair? I completely agree with my

:08:43. > :08:46.honourable friend and commend her and the huge team of people who

:08:47. > :08:57.worked on all of litigation that we have seen in the High Court, brought

:08:58. > :09:03.by a number of unions. These unions deserve huge credit for the effort

:09:04. > :09:08.is that they put into uncovering exactly what went on, and then

:09:09. > :09:13.getting redress, working with my honourable friend and others, in the

:09:14. > :09:18.courts as well. These cases have been settled over the last two years

:09:19. > :09:23.and millions have been paid but the fact remains, not one director of

:09:24. > :09:28.the firms who funded the consulting Association has never been properly

:09:29. > :09:32.brought to book, find, or subject to any court sanction for the misery

:09:33. > :09:39.they visited on construction workers over the decades. No one has been

:09:40. > :09:43.brought to book properly for this. In fact, we are behaving as if all

:09:44. > :09:50.has been forgiven. Tears were apparently shared last month over

:09:51. > :09:56.the fact that we will not hear Big Ben's chimes for several years. We

:09:57. > :10:00.should be more upset by the fact that Sir Robert McAlpine, a firm and

:10:01. > :10:06.protected in all of this, appears to have bagged the work that is to be

:10:07. > :10:11.carried out on Big Ben. The multi-million pound contract. Let us

:10:12. > :10:18.be clear about the role of Robert McAlpine as a company. Callum

:10:19. > :10:24.McAlpine, a director of the company, was chairman of the Consulting

:10:25. > :10:30.Association when it was formed in 1993. Later the head of age are at

:10:31. > :10:35.that firm was a successor at that firm. And choosing a hearing of the

:10:36. > :10:48.Scottish affairs Select Committee inquiry into all of this in 2012,

:10:49. > :10:53.and admission was made. He said that they were met on the basis that I

:10:54. > :10:56.had put myself at the front and took the flak for its also that they

:10:57. > :11:04.would not be John into all this, they would remain hidden. Enlighten

:11:05. > :11:07.all this who can be as parliamentarians sit here and see

:11:08. > :11:13.this as an outrage to the victims, many of whom are watching this

:11:14. > :11:17.debate, while standing by, as Sir Robert McAlpine are awarded this

:11:18. > :11:21.contract to do this work on this parliamentary estate? There must be

:11:22. > :11:26.consequences when you bid for public contracts and you are found to be

:11:27. > :11:30.involved in these types of practice. Can the minister when she gets up

:11:31. > :11:42.explain why on earth Sir Robert McAlpine are to be awarded this

:11:43. > :11:44.contract, this contract to fix Big Ben, that so many parliamentarians

:11:45. > :11:46.were shedding tears about, why on earth are we giving them this

:11:47. > :11:49.contract, given their disgraceful role in blacklisting? I took up this

:11:50. > :11:56.issue originally as a constituency issue, having been alerted to the

:11:57. > :12:00.scandal. I took a stronger interest when I was shadow Secretary of State

:12:01. > :12:05.for business and instigated the first complete debate on the floor

:12:06. > :12:09.of the House on this topic in 2013. I instigated another debate earlier

:12:10. > :12:16.this year on this because we have got to have a proper public inquiry

:12:17. > :12:22.into blacklisting, and the victims are continually denied this.

:12:23. > :12:25.I am grateful to my honourable friend forgiving way. One of my

:12:26. > :12:31.constituents was a victim of blacklisting. He was party to

:12:32. > :12:35.exposing blacklisting as if whistle-blower on this issue. He has

:12:36. > :12:39.submitted evidence to the Minister 's office on that point about the

:12:40. > :12:42.public inquiry. With my honourable friend agree that the Minister

:12:43. > :12:47.should look at that seriously and examine that in detail as part of

:12:48. > :12:54.the inquiry? I completely agree. I have met with his constituent

:12:55. > :12:59.myself. Then they entered the reason we need this is that we need to know

:13:00. > :13:03.who knew this was going on. It wasn't just happening in the private

:13:04. > :13:08.sector, it was happening in the public sector. There are allegations

:13:09. > :13:13.it was going on on the Olympic sites, portcullis House, Ministry of

:13:14. > :13:18.Defence sites, but who knew it was going on? Permanent secretaries,

:13:19. > :13:24.ministers, departments commissioning, were they complicit?

:13:25. > :13:29.We don't know. Does the law need to be changed, tightened, to what

:13:30. > :13:32.extent is this still going on? The Coalition and current Conservative

:13:33. > :13:36.governments, each time we have debated this, have refused to set up

:13:37. > :13:40.that public inquiry on the basis that they say there is little

:13:41. > :13:44.evidence that blacklisting is still going on. Today I want to present

:13:45. > :13:48.compelling evidence to the Minister of which shows this practice is

:13:49. > :14:12.still definitely going on, and it is happening on one of the biggest

:14:13. > :14:16.construction sites in Europe, Crossrail, a publicly funded project

:14:17. > :14:18.which I have myself visited. Let us not forget that one construction

:14:19. > :14:20.worker died after being crushed by falling wet concrete in March 2014,

:14:21. > :14:22.and two other men were seriously injured in separate incidents in

:14:23. > :14:25.January 2015 working on crossed real panels around Fisher Street area in

:14:26. > :14:27.central London. In July just past the constructors concerned pleaded

:14:28. > :14:29.guilty to three offences following an investigation by the Health and

:14:30. > :14:33.Safety Executive and they were fined more than ?1 million. The Health and

:14:34. > :14:36.Safety Executive said that had simple measures being taken such as

:14:37. > :14:41.having properly implemented exclusion zones in high hazard areas

:14:42. > :14:46.all three incidents could have been prevented. This illustrates why it

:14:47. > :14:50.is so important construction workers should feel free to raise health and

:14:51. > :14:55.safety issues without fear of retribution. I give way.

:14:56. > :15:00.My honourable friend almost makes the point I was going to make, he

:15:01. > :15:04.has outlined the human cost to the blacklisted workers and their

:15:05. > :15:07.families that there's though not a more sinister reason, intimidating

:15:08. > :15:10.legitimate trading in activity so that they can boost profits often at

:15:11. > :15:16.the cost and lives of their own workers? I think my honourable

:15:17. > :15:23.friend makes a good point. To what extent is profits being put before

:15:24. > :15:29.safety? Why is there such paranoia when employees and workers raise

:15:30. > :15:33.these issues? I find it hard to fathom, given when you look at the

:15:34. > :15:37.fatalities that are occurring in the construction sector. The first case

:15:38. > :15:41.I want to mention to the minister concerns the surveillance of workers

:15:42. > :15:47.that took place at a peaceful demonstration at a Crossrail site in

:15:48. > :15:52.2016. I have seen and read the e-mails that were circular to

:15:53. > :15:56.contractors and employee relations department at Crossrail which

:15:57. > :16:00.details questionable surveillance practices. These surveillance

:16:01. > :16:04.operations involved named individuals who were implicated and

:16:05. > :16:07.involved with the activities of the Consulting Association. The evidence

:16:08. > :16:11.which I will supply after this debate to the Minister illustrates

:16:12. > :16:13.that the number of construction workers were being closely watched

:16:14. > :16:25.there, and sensitive It is not clear where this evidence

:16:26. > :16:35.was given, or by whom. Those who were collecting the information had

:16:36. > :16:40.to fill in a form. Two of the workers have seek to gain employment

:16:41. > :16:47.on Crossrail and agencies advertising. In each case, the

:16:48. > :16:52.approached the job agencies, we had the required skills to fill the

:16:53. > :16:55.vacancies, however soon as the relayed their names, there was a

:16:56. > :17:01.delay and they were given an excuse as to why the positions had been

:17:02. > :17:06.filled. Unite has already informed the office of their concerns with

:17:07. > :17:10.regards of this, the first case. We do not believe it is coincidental

:17:11. > :17:17.what happened to these two workers. Subcontractors were clearly

:17:18. > :17:20.discouraged from employing certain known trade union members. One

:17:21. > :17:26.subcontractor has told Unite that the consequences of him employing a

:17:27. > :17:31.Unite member would be the refusal of future work and for obvious reasons,

:17:32. > :17:36.that supper cut -- that subcontractor does not want to

:17:37. > :17:41.disclose his identity. This evidence, and I quote, reasons the

:17:42. > :17:45.possibility that surveillance has been undertaken without checks and

:17:46. > :17:51.balances being in place and that the collection of this type of data is

:17:52. > :17:54.excessive under the law. The second case I wish to highlight is that of

:17:55. > :18:02.an Alec Trish and who has been trying to obtain work in the

:18:03. > :18:06.construction agency since having a grievance after working on

:18:07. > :18:11.Crossrail. He has applied, always being turned down. He never received

:18:12. > :18:16.any criticism about the quality of his work, he is an intelligent guy,

:18:17. > :18:21.very conscientious about his work and he takes the health and safety

:18:22. > :18:25.of home and his colleagues very safely indeed. He is not

:18:26. > :18:28.particularly political, he is a construction worker. That is the

:18:29. > :18:35.focus of his work. He had served Crossrail with a subject access

:18:36. > :18:38.request, which made Crossrail provide him with the information

:18:39. > :18:45.they have on him. I have had a chance to read them and sell. They

:18:46. > :18:51.reveal Crossrail and three of its contractors sharing personal data of

:18:52. > :18:56.the employment and the issues and grievances he had raised there. The

:18:57. > :19:00.data appears to be possessed of the purpose of determining the

:19:01. > :19:02.individual suitability relating to his trade union activities, the very

:19:03. > :19:07.strong and friends from the documents as some kind of vetting

:19:08. > :19:11.operation was in operation between Crossrail, his contractors and the

:19:12. > :19:17.agencies involved. Again, I will pass information on to the Minister

:19:18. > :19:20.after this debate. Now, these are just two examples but clearly they

:19:21. > :19:25.showed that blacklisting is still going on. I do not think it is being

:19:26. > :19:30.carried out in the way it was before, with a centralised system,

:19:31. > :19:33.collectively funded by the construction companies, not least

:19:34. > :19:37.because if you are cotton out under the data protection legislation,

:19:38. > :19:42.there is a bigger fine and we have the blacklisting legislation that is

:19:43. > :19:46.now in force. Clearly, it is still being done it any more convert

:19:47. > :19:53.weight, making it harder to identify. -- covert way. That is a

:19:54. > :19:57.call for evidence for next year, they should go it on and put out the

:19:58. > :20:02.call for evidence without further delay. That is no substitute for the

:20:03. > :20:08.public enquiry we seek. The ultimate way to get the bottom of what did

:20:09. > :20:11.happen and are still happening is by having a proper investigation like

:20:12. > :20:16.that. My own view is the law clearly needs to be reviewed, in spite of

:20:17. > :20:21.the Minister saying it is not necessary. I would like to see

:20:22. > :20:24.workers being given a positive right not to be blacklisted. The

:20:25. > :20:29.suggestion made that there should be made a criminal offence as well

:20:30. > :20:31.made. I would also like to see protection against blacklisting to

:20:32. > :20:40.include trade union related activity, as opposed to the

:20:41. > :20:44.definition now. Does my honourable friend agree we should commend the

:20:45. > :20:50.work of trade unions on this issue? The GMP has secured 630,000 in my

:20:51. > :20:54.own region of Yorkshire, other is more to do. That is right. All

:20:55. > :20:59.members of this house who have spoken on this issue, done any

:21:00. > :21:03.activity on this issue, would have found it harder to do what we have

:21:04. > :21:06.done without the trade unions providing the support and

:21:07. > :21:11.information and uncovering what happened. I have to say to the

:21:12. > :21:14.Minister, I do not understand why the Government and the Minister

:21:15. > :21:19.Department are so resistant to having those public enquiry. What

:21:20. > :21:24.are they so afraid of? What are they so afraid of? At the end of the last

:21:25. > :21:27.Parliament, I made it clear to her department, which I was hoping to

:21:28. > :21:31.run after the election, that if we won the election, I would be giving

:21:32. > :21:36.instructions for the establishment of such a public enquiry. I was very

:21:37. > :21:41.clear to the Secretary. It can be done. It needs to be done. Above

:21:42. > :21:46.all, for thousands of people here who have suffered, they need this to

:21:47. > :21:51.be done. They need it to be done at the same time that those who were

:21:52. > :21:55.ultimately responsible for all of this got off scot free. I the

:21:56. > :22:00.evidence to the Minister orally and I will provide the documents so she

:22:01. > :22:04.can see them in detail. This is still going on. I say to her in this

:22:05. > :22:08.Government, a Government that claims to be one looks the interest of

:22:09. > :22:13.workers, your money workers, your money where your mouth is. Deliver

:22:14. > :22:19.on this public enquiry and let's get justice for those who have suffered

:22:20. > :22:24.and those who are still suffering. The question is this house have

:22:25. > :22:30.considered blacklisting. Are there any colleagues who would like to

:22:31. > :22:37.follow an? No colic standing? -- note colleagues standing. I would

:22:38. > :22:43.make one commentary on the public enquiry and that is, there could be

:22:44. > :22:48.reasons why the Government is reluctant. If you look at history,

:22:49. > :22:59.of course there were previous blacklisting organisations and we

:23:00. > :23:05.know of the unanswered questions, rather unjustly resolved questions,

:23:06. > :23:14.relating to Shrewsbury in 1973. We know about the economic blacklist

:23:15. > :23:19.and I would put it to my honourable friend, to the House and also to the

:23:20. > :23:25.Minister, that we should not be scared of taking this on. I believe

:23:26. > :23:31.there has been people working in side Parliament who were part of

:23:32. > :23:41.creating the economic league like list, working for MPs, using the

:23:42. > :23:48.facilities inside. What is to say they have not continued those

:23:49. > :23:55.activities? Because it is the same companies that come up and it was

:23:56. > :24:03.all sorts of people. I think there is a bit of a view, some naivete of

:24:04. > :24:08.MPs, something to do with extreme militants battling away. I tell you

:24:09. > :24:16.what extreme militant and refused a job because of it, that was me. -- I

:24:17. > :24:20.will tell you one. I do not fit the normal view of being an extreme

:24:21. > :24:28.militants. Some would say, far from it. I will leave you to make your

:24:29. > :24:34.own judgments on that. However, when I got given a job in Manchester in

:24:35. > :24:41.the 1980s the job got withdrawn from me. It was a bit of a surprise. I

:24:42. > :24:45.asked them why. I said, you have given me a job and now you have

:24:46. > :24:50.taken it away. We said I was on a list and they were very apologetic

:24:51. > :24:54.and said they cannot give me at. Someone got hold of the list and I

:24:55. > :25:02.remember it vividly. There was a meeting at the University of London

:25:03. > :25:11.union. Wreckage base was the events officer at the time. -- Ricky to

:25:12. > :25:17.race. It was the list and it was made public. I thought I would have

:25:18. > :25:22.a nosy and have a look. I looked and found my name there. I have no idea

:25:23. > :25:29.why I was on the blacklist. I do not know who put me on it or by.

:25:30. > :25:36.Frankly, it hasn't affected me because I was not that bothered

:25:37. > :25:40.about the job. For some people it has blighted their lives and the

:25:41. > :25:47.income is ever since. I would have only actually known that if the

:25:48. > :25:53.person telling me had pointed it out to me, apologetically. They could

:25:54. > :25:57.have easily not said a word and said, no, there is no job there,

:25:58. > :26:02.sorry. No contracts signed and I would not have known. If I had not

:26:03. > :26:06.gone along to that... I saw it somewhere and I read it was on and I

:26:07. > :26:12.thought I would stick my nose in and have a look. If I had not have gone,

:26:13. > :26:17.she recently, it is a bit of a shock when you find your name on a list.

:26:18. > :26:21.You wonder who it is you put it on. I did some research then. Some good

:26:22. > :26:29.publications from the time, you lot of names on the economic league,

:26:30. > :26:32.some working for a Tory MPs. A public enquiry, let's have

:26:33. > :26:36.everything revealed. Let's have everything revealed for those who

:26:37. > :26:42.have not had justice. It is not about me, I am all right. Shrewsbury

:26:43. > :26:45.and all the way through the 70s and 80s, construction and not just

:26:46. > :26:50.construction. Let's have justice. There are a lot of out there who do

:26:51. > :26:55.not even know why they did not get the job they went for and I tell you

:26:56. > :26:59.today, there will be the NHS and parts of the NHS as well, not just

:27:00. > :27:05.construction, with this informal blacklisting is going on. Therefore,

:27:06. > :27:15.it is crucial we change the law. Let's get on with it. Let's have an

:27:16. > :27:18.enquiry. My honourable friend mentions the shrews briefcase. The

:27:19. > :27:25.alleged conspiracy to place in my constituency. It was then people

:27:26. > :27:30.trying to defend their livelihoods. -- shrews breathe. That continues 40

:27:31. > :27:36.years later. My honourable friend led the debate and I paid tribute to

:27:37. > :27:39.him and his persistence in this. He mentioned the attitude of the

:27:40. > :27:43.Minister and the Government, in that they do not want a public enquiry

:27:44. > :27:48.because blacklisting has stopped. Whether it was the case 40 years ago

:27:49. > :27:51.or workers today, even if blacklisting had stopped, the

:27:52. > :27:55.effects are still there and the poverty and the shame and frankly be

:27:56. > :28:00.humiliation of men and women, decent, hard-working men and women

:28:01. > :28:04.who have been denied that livelihood and have been suffering the economic

:28:05. > :28:08.consequences ever since. The effects and human consequences are still

:28:09. > :28:13.with us. The sense of injustice above all is still with us. We

:28:14. > :28:21.cannot turn our back on the injustice, whether it is the

:28:22. > :28:25.families and my constituency, or whether it is the men and women who

:28:26. > :28:29.have suffered thousands and thousands of pounds worth of

:28:30. > :28:35.financial loss, and heaven knows what kind of psychological damage,

:28:36. > :28:39.who are still living with the consequences of that today. Even if

:28:40. > :28:45.the blacklisting is not taking place, and I am minded to agree that

:28:46. > :28:50.it is, even if it is not, the consequences are, and I believe the

:28:51. > :28:54.Government has a responsibility to address those current consequences.

:28:55. > :28:59.I want to make a couple of comments. I was not intending to speak. Given

:29:00. > :29:05.there is time, I will do so. First of all, I happen to be the member of

:29:06. > :29:10.Parliament for six of the members of the Shrewsbury group of individuals.

:29:11. > :29:16.I know how they live with the consequences of that blacklisting.

:29:17. > :29:20.One of my colleagues has been the Labour mayor of the tyrant, a Labour

:29:21. > :29:25.council, served on the police authority, even today cannot travel

:29:26. > :29:28.to the United States because of a conviction that took place at that

:29:29. > :29:32.time because of their investigation into a whole range of matters to do

:29:33. > :29:36.with health and safety into the workplace and the allegations that

:29:37. > :29:39.were made at the time, which the Government still need to address, by

:29:40. > :29:44.the information the Government holds, that could publish, about the

:29:45. > :29:50.records of the Shrewsbury 24 other time. I would ask the Minister to

:29:51. > :29:54.look at that issue and revisit what was visited strongly in this Chamber

:29:55. > :29:58.in the last Parliament about the consequences of the Government not

:29:59. > :30:02.releasing information to do with the Shrewsbury 24, which the Government

:30:03. > :30:07.promised to release and the Government have failed to release.

:30:08. > :30:12.The main reason I wanted to stand is to say this, I was approached in the

:30:13. > :30:16.last few weeks by my constituent Alan Wainwright, a victim of

:30:17. > :30:20.blacklisting, and who was part of the whistle-blowing of the

:30:21. > :30:25.blacklisting exposure that has taken place. Last Tuesday and was a

:30:26. > :30:29.Guardian article that detailed Mr Wainwright's experiences and he has

:30:30. > :30:33.produced a detailed report of his experiences with his dealing with

:30:34. > :30:38.the trade unions, dealings with business, which he has submitted to

:30:39. > :30:43.the Minister Department for her to examine. He has also submitted it to

:30:44. > :30:47.the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, who himself has ordered

:30:48. > :30:52.an enquiry into this matter with in the Unite union. I would like to ask

:30:53. > :30:56.the Minister what Mr Wainwright asked me to ask the Minister, will

:30:57. > :31:01.she look at and confirmed she has received that report, consider that

:31:02. > :31:05.evidence and will look at the possible enquiry into all the

:31:06. > :31:07.allegations that he has made in addition to the points made ably by

:31:08. > :31:18.my honourable friend? Thank you, Mr Walker. When I was a

:31:19. > :31:22.young trade unionist, there was a feeling about that those people who

:31:23. > :31:29.were blacklisted were generally revolutionaries and pretty bad

:31:30. > :31:35.people. Now I suspect that that view still harbours in the dark corners

:31:36. > :31:42.of some people's minds. But nearly 40 years ago, I was a works convener

:31:43. > :31:46.in a medium-sized factory and after a 19 week strike, the employer

:31:47. > :31:55.decided to sack me for being nothing more than the works convener of the

:31:56. > :32:01.people that had been on strike. Now, people may well have said at that

:32:02. > :32:06.time that I was aggressive and I might well have deserved it. But the

:32:07. > :32:09.reality is that my wife and two little children have not done

:32:10. > :32:18.anything wrong and I never really got over the fact as to why I should

:32:19. > :32:26.be victimised in that way. Earlier this year, Mr Walker, Prince Charles

:32:27. > :32:30.on the instruction of the Queen, knighted me. So I asked the

:32:31. > :32:36.question, in the long-term, who was the villain? Me as a member of

:32:37. > :32:46.Parliament or the employers who decided to victimise me but also,

:32:47. > :32:50.more importantly, my family? I have extra time so I will allow each

:32:51. > :32:58.frontbencher seven minutes and that will give the minister longer as

:32:59. > :33:05.well as she acquires. Mr Stevens. Can I first congratulate the

:33:06. > :33:10.honourable member forced rest of giving a detailed view of

:33:11. > :33:15.blacklisting. I have argued since the general election that in this

:33:16. > :33:18.House, there is a potential for this Parliament to be called the Justice

:33:19. > :33:24.Parliament. That is ensuring that there are ways to deal with the

:33:25. > :33:27.Shrewsbury 24 and the wrongful conviction of miners in the miners

:33:28. > :33:34.strike and the issue of blacklisting as well as those caught up in

:33:35. > :33:43.contaminated blood. While there is a -- been a star made in contaminated

:33:44. > :33:50.blood is, I support the calls for a public inquiry on blacklisting. A

:33:51. > :33:55.firm based in Fife, the historical context may be general strike, and

:33:56. > :34:03.they are in that film, blacklisting is revealed. It is difficult to

:34:04. > :34:08.comprehend the levels of blacklisting because of the levels

:34:09. > :34:14.of denial and secrecy around this odious practice. It is not difficult

:34:15. > :34:19.to imagine the effect on people's lives, not just the workers, but

:34:20. > :34:23.their families as well. Denial of the most basic of human rights, the

:34:24. > :34:29.right to work and provide for your family. The same companies that have

:34:30. > :34:35.grown rich and public contracts, it is and abuse of power. Because

:34:36. > :34:50.decisions taken by company directors and managers to maximised runs won't

:34:51. > :34:55.-- to maximise share holder profits, is the punishment of workers. What

:34:56. > :34:59.has been described as commonplace in the construction industry. People

:35:00. > :35:04.turn up for work and in a day or two they are told there was no work for

:35:05. > :35:08.them because companies have been looking at the blacklist. Be clear

:35:09. > :35:22.that blacklisting is any -- in any form is unacceptable. The Scottish

:35:23. > :35:27.Government has introduced legislation and procurements

:35:28. > :35:34.legislation which came into effect in April last year. This changes

:35:35. > :35:39.show that any companies involved in blacklisting will be excluded from

:35:40. > :35:49.bidding from public sector contracts. This action has been

:35:50. > :35:56.welcomed. Particularly that any company applying for new public

:35:57. > :36:01.service contracts where back looking -- blacklisting has been found in

:36:02. > :36:04.the past, must apologise, and comply with its tribunal ruling made

:36:05. > :36:10.against them in relation to blacklisting. Mr Walker, I share the

:36:11. > :36:19.concerns of the honourable member for Streatham in the delays. That is

:36:20. > :36:23.just another pathetic Brexit induced stalling, a kick in the teeth for

:36:24. > :36:26.those who want justice for past wrongs and security for the present

:36:27. > :36:34.and future workers. Some of that impetus for the move has come

:36:35. > :36:37.through action for the High Court, for greater transparency. A number

:36:38. > :36:43.of companies almost attempted to name and shame themselves. So Robert

:36:44. > :36:51.McAlpine, who I will come onto later. One of the directors

:36:52. > :36:57.mentioned a Calvin was interviewed under oath by the Scottish affairs

:36:58. > :37:00.committee when it conducted its inquiry into blacklisting. I hope

:37:01. > :37:06.that the Scottish affairs committee go back to that inquiry which was

:37:07. > :37:09.chaired by my predecessor. The three interim reports made it clear that

:37:10. > :37:13.there is a case for a full public inquiry which is essential if we are

:37:14. > :37:21.ever to expose the extent of the practice and take measures to stop

:37:22. > :37:28.it. To return to the founding member of the consortium, can account I

:37:29. > :37:33.refuse to answer many questions put to him and relied heavily on those

:37:34. > :37:39.lawyer for advice. Despite which, he was forced to admit that the company

:37:40. > :37:47.had used a blacklist to let workers for the Olympic Stadium. This was

:37:48. > :37:51.shocking them that they had been awarded a ?20 million contract for

:37:52. > :38:04.Big Ben. The contract to refurbish one of the most iconic buildings in

:38:05. > :38:08.the country, that shows the seat of -- they should be stripped of that

:38:09. > :38:14.contract. It is a disgrace that they were awarded it in the first place.

:38:15. > :38:19.The government should be looking at what the devolved administrations

:38:20. > :38:25.have done in regard to looking at companies and public sectors of

:38:26. > :38:34.those who have been engaging in blacklisting. It signals bad faith

:38:35. > :38:40.that one of the main perpetrators of this conspiracy, and it is a

:38:41. > :38:45.conspiracy, are accessing public money to Bruce 's profits. I

:38:46. > :38:48.supported the honourable member Falls flat in relation to a public

:38:49. > :38:53.inquiry. I hope that will be announced because there are many,

:38:54. > :39:00.many I'm answered questions in relation to that. So Mr Walker, I

:39:01. > :39:04.would like to state once again that all those who have spoken so far,

:39:05. > :39:15.they have the support of the SNP for a blacklist. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

:39:16. > :39:21.Can I congratulate the a cruel. To them for his advocacy of a noble

:39:22. > :39:26.cause. 'S trade unions are a force for good. To be denied work because

:39:27. > :39:30.you are a trade unionists is an affront to democracy. Neither is

:39:31. > :39:36.blacklisting history. This scandal has never gone away. 40 years ago,

:39:37. > :39:42.when I came out of the Grunwick strike, I was blacklisted. I was one

:39:43. > :39:46.of the 13,000 subversives, as defined at the time. I was out of

:39:47. > :39:53.work for a matter of months and I became an officer in the transport

:39:54. > :39:58.and General workers union. But tens of thousands of others played a very

:39:59. > :40:03.heavy price. I worked with the Guardian to expose the economic

:40:04. > :40:08.league, leading to their demise, but it is scandalous that they are

:40:09. > :40:14.reincarnated as another organisation practising the same practices. Mr

:40:15. > :40:20.Chairman, it is absolutely scandalous that two generations on,

:40:21. > :40:24.from the 1970s, that we still have an industry, the construction

:40:25. > :40:35.industry, that has not learned the lessons of history. Has it not

:40:36. > :40:39.realise that as the public law professor of London new gusty has

:40:40. > :40:43.described, blacklisting is the worst human rights abuse of workers.

:40:44. > :40:48.Blacklisting has been outlawed but the law is not strong enough. There

:40:49. > :40:58.has been some compensation for some of the victims of blacklisting but

:40:59. > :41:03.it is not good enough. And in particular, they escape public

:41:04. > :41:08.scrutiny. No company has been punished for their actions. No

:41:09. > :41:15.director has ended up in the dock and that is completely wrong. The

:41:16. > :41:21.scale of blacklisting over the years it is tens of thousands of workers.

:41:22. > :41:24.And I have to say, with a long history of government, police and

:41:25. > :41:31.construction firms acting in collusion. What we have heard today

:41:32. > :41:35.from the honourable member from Streatham is that blacklisting is

:41:36. > :41:41.happening now on the part of major and allegedly reputable companies

:41:42. > :41:50.enjoying enormous public contracts the Crossrail or Big Ben. -- be it

:41:51. > :41:56.Crossrail or Big Ben. We reflect on the human consequences of that on a

:41:57. > :42:00.continuing basis. We have heard powerful testimony of that. Workers

:42:01. > :42:06.have a pride in their work. They define themselves by the work that

:42:07. > :42:10.they do. It is about finding a work identity. To be out of work for

:42:11. > :42:15.years, not quite knowing why and then to discover than it is because

:42:16. > :42:26.you did nothing other than to ask for a safe workplace, is a scandal.

:42:27. > :42:30.One example,... I'm grateful for you giving way. My constituent is an

:42:31. > :42:35.alliteration and he was blacklisted and is no longer in an efficient but

:42:36. > :42:39.cannot work in his new field because of the history of blacklisting. The

:42:40. > :42:44.call for blacklisting needs to address the legacy of what happened?

:42:45. > :42:49.Without hesitation, and I will come to that very shortly. If I can give

:42:50. > :42:56.one human example, hundreds of individuals have been blacklisted

:42:57. > :43:00.but I can give one example. Dave Smith, the joint secretary of the

:43:01. > :43:07.blacklisting support group. He is unemployable because of files held

:43:08. > :43:15.by the economic league and the consulting Association. This file is

:43:16. > :43:21.38 pages long, stretching from 19 82 to 2007. From his very first job

:43:22. > :43:26.through successful employment and on Balfour Beatty, his sin was to take

:43:27. > :43:30.part in a dispute about unpaid wages. The file included all his

:43:31. > :43:35.personal information, address, national insurance numbers and

:43:36. > :43:42.history, and also details of his wife and brother as well. This is an

:43:43. > :43:48.absolute affront to democracy and the rights of working people. And it

:43:49. > :43:53.demands further action. And what the speakers today have absolutely and

:43:54. > :43:58.rightly said, what we need first and foremost is a public inquiry into

:43:59. > :44:06.the issue of blacklisting. Its use in the past, its current years and

:44:07. > :44:12.steps going forward to eradicate it. The role of the special

:44:13. > :44:17.demonstration squad, the role of the consultancy Association, the role of

:44:18. > :44:22.blacklisted -- blacklisting companies on public contracts. The

:44:23. > :44:28.truth needs to be told. Secondly, we need to strengthen legislation to

:44:29. > :44:33.stop the practice. Governor lies blacklisting but also ensure that

:44:34. > :44:36.the law is not just limited to employment relationships because by

:44:37. > :44:46.definition, if a worker is blacklisted, a worker does not have

:44:47. > :44:51.anything employment relationship. Bogus self-employment, that argument

:44:52. > :44:55.that says that we have 10 million workers in insecure employment where

:44:56. > :45:03.employers can abuse without fear and very often blacklisting follows.

:45:04. > :45:07.Circuit cleek 30, we need stronger rules on contracts being awarded to

:45:08. > :45:13.firms involved in blacklisting. There have to be consequences for

:45:14. > :45:16.blacklisting. McAlpine, one of the first blacklisting offenders, it is

:45:17. > :45:23.a scandal that the Big Ben contract has gone to that company. I suspect

:45:24. > :45:27.they don't give a dam about the ball, but we give a dam that this

:45:28. > :45:34.firm that blacklisted workers, treated them shamefully, has got an

:45:35. > :45:40.iconic contract yards from where we are today. So what we need is

:45:41. > :45:44.effective action, including local authorities level, I praise

:45:45. > :45:48.Liverpool in particular for their social value charter which talks

:45:49. > :45:52.about the respect for all individuals and does not engage in

:45:53. > :45:56.any dissemination or blacklisting practices. In other words, the

:45:57. > :46:02.sending of an unmistakable message which has to be enforced, that if

:46:03. > :46:06.you are blacklisting, or suspected of it, you do not get public

:46:07. > :46:10.contracts. And we need to make sure that specific laws banning

:46:11. > :46:15.blacklisting and data protection are retained after leaving the European

:46:16. > :46:19.Union. And if I could say this in conclusion, as we have heard today,

:46:20. > :46:24.blacklisting is not history. We need to learn from the lessons of history

:46:25. > :46:30.and confined blacklisting to history. That is why we need that

:46:31. > :46:33.public inquiry, the strengthening of the law, and absolute clarity that

:46:34. > :46:39.you don't get public contracts if you blacklist and if I can say this,

:46:40. > :46:45.Mr Chairman, the time has come to blacklist the blacklist is.

:46:46. > :46:53.Please leave a minute or two at the end to sum up. It's a pleasure to

:46:54. > :46:57.serve under your chairmanship Mr Walker. I first congratulate the

:46:58. > :47:02.honourable member for Streatham to securing this debate and also for

:47:03. > :47:08.his opening remarks, which I listened to intently. I'm pleased to

:47:09. > :47:13.have the opportunity to respond to this debate and I want to make clear

:47:14. > :47:17.that the government take the issue of blacklisting extremely seriously.

:47:18. > :47:26.We hope and trust that blacklisting has already become, and will remain,

:47:27. > :47:29.a thing of the past. But we are not at all complacent, and I am even

:47:30. > :47:35.less complacent having heard what I've heard that Italy from the

:47:36. > :47:39.honourable member, who introduced the debate about evidence that he

:47:40. > :47:46.wishes to put before me after the debate. I was shocked by what I

:47:47. > :47:51.heard, and I share his view and that of other members that blacklisting

:47:52. > :47:54.of trade union members and activists is completely unacceptable. It has

:47:55. > :48:02.no part to play in modern employment relations. We have in place, as

:48:03. > :48:05.honourable members have noted, regulations that are targeted

:48:06. > :48:10.specifically against trade union blacklists. I believe these

:48:11. > :48:14.regulations are both proportionate and robust to prevent the abuse

:48:15. > :48:20.occurring. I accept the point that has been made that the abuse, the

:48:21. > :48:27.horrendous abuse of the past, which was over and organised, and clearly

:48:28. > :48:33.in breach of the law as it stands today, there is a risk that that

:48:34. > :48:41.sort of overt abuse may have been replaced by covert approach, and

:48:42. > :48:45.that has to be borne in mind. But the blacklisting regulations

:48:46. > :48:48.introduced in 2010 has made it unlawful for an individual or

:48:49. > :48:53.organisation to compile, sell or make use of a blacklist of trade

:48:54. > :48:57.union members, or those who have taken part in trade union

:48:58. > :49:03.activities. Since the introduction of those regulations, there hasn't

:49:04. > :49:07.been any evidence presented to government or to the information

:49:08. > :49:13.Commissioner that these practices are recurring, and naturally if that

:49:14. > :49:17.is no longer the case, I want to know about it. Any individual or

:49:18. > :49:21.trade union that believes they've been the victim of blacklisting has

:49:22. > :49:24.the right to take action. They don't have to wait for any independent

:49:25. > :49:30.investigation, they can enforce their rights in the regulations

:49:31. > :49:34.through the employment tribunal or County Court. Anyone who believes

:49:35. > :49:37.they have been affected has the right to pursue justice through

:49:38. > :49:41.these means and we would encourage them to do so. The measures in the

:49:42. > :49:46.blacklisting regulations 2010 are reinforced by powers in the Data

:49:47. > :49:51.Protection Act 1998 which protect the use of personal data. Very much

:49:52. > :49:55.needed in the examples we've heard about this afternoon. I'd like to

:49:56. > :49:59.emphasise this includes information on trade union membership and

:50:00. > :50:03.sensitive personal data. The government takes the protection of

:50:04. > :50:09.personal data very seriously indeed. The information Commissioner 's

:50:10. > :50:14.office is the regulatory body set up to investigate reaches of the Data

:50:15. > :50:18.Protection Act and it has the powers to take enforcement action including

:50:19. > :50:23.searching premises, issuing enforcement notices and finds of up

:50:24. > :50:30.to half ?1 million for serious breaches. The government continues

:50:31. > :50:39.to bear down on those who seek to exploit personal data. We have

:50:40. > :50:46.published a statement of intent in relation to the pill. The pill will

:50:47. > :50:51.implement the general -- the Bill. It will give us the most robust and

:50:52. > :50:55.dynamic sets of data laws in the world. It will give people more

:50:56. > :50:58.control of their data, require a higher standard of consent for its

:50:59. > :51:05.use, prepare Britain for exiting the EU. As a result of the data

:51:06. > :51:10.protection regulation the information Commissioner's fining

:51:11. > :51:17.powers will substantially increase to either 4% of annual global

:51:18. > :51:21.turnover of an organisation or of 20 million year race, which ever is the

:51:22. > :51:25.greater. It is clear that data collection and data analytics in the

:51:26. > :51:29.workplace are gaining in importance and in light of this and the

:51:30. > :51:33.strength and framework that the general data protection regulation

:51:34. > :51:37.will create, the Information Commissioner's office will intend to

:51:38. > :51:41.open a call for evidence which honourable members have alluded to

:51:42. > :51:45.on the implications of modern practices in recruitment and

:51:46. > :51:48.selection and the obligations of employers. The honourable member

:51:49. > :51:53.says that this should be happening sooner rather than later. I agree

:51:54. > :51:57.and I believe the call for evidence is scheduled for next year. I will

:51:58. > :52:00.talk to the Information Commissioner's office to see if this

:52:01. > :52:05.can be brought forward. This call for evidence is an important step in

:52:06. > :52:08.not only trying to establish the true picture of the level of

:52:09. > :52:13.blacklisting which may or may not take place in practice now but also

:52:14. > :52:16.how growth in digital services has created potential new risks for

:52:17. > :52:26.employees and how these may be addressed. In my previous capacity

:52:27. > :52:34.on Southwark county council, when they decided to outsource highways

:52:35. > :52:39.we took a motion to council calling for them to ensure there was no

:52:40. > :52:44.blacklisting with employees of Kia working for Southwark county

:52:45. > :52:47.council. This motion was passed unanimously because Conservative

:52:48. > :52:53.members on Southwark county council like those of this Parliament I'm

:52:54. > :52:58.sure, were vocally opposed to blacklisting. However, nothing was

:52:59. > :53:04.done to find out whether or not blacklisting was actually taking

:53:05. > :53:07.place. You're talking to us about search of evidence but surely

:53:08. > :53:11.without a public enquiry to find out what has actually taken place there

:53:12. > :53:17.is no way you will actually get to the bottom of it. I thank the

:53:18. > :53:24.honourable member for his intervention, and I can reassure him

:53:25. > :53:29.that if people in his Boro have any evidence the best thing they can do

:53:30. > :53:31.at the moment is to take it to the Information Commissioner, who will

:53:32. > :53:36.investigate it. In fact the Information Commissioner doesn't

:53:37. > :53:43.need particular examples if they are having allegations made against a

:53:44. > :53:49.particular employer or within a sector, then they will commit to

:53:50. > :53:52.investigating the issues that his constituents have raised. I'll give

:53:53. > :54:00.way one last time and then I must conclude. He has mentioned

:54:01. > :54:04.procurement. Can the Minister tell us what steps taken in terms of

:54:05. > :54:08.procurement to make sure companies of blacklisted workers are not

:54:09. > :54:14.getting public sector contracts? I will write to the honourable

:54:15. > :54:18.gentleman on that matter. We do expect high standards of corporate

:54:19. > :54:23.governance in major contracts that the government awards. And if there

:54:24. > :54:30.is evidence that companies are acting in the present-day in not

:54:31. > :54:35.just a disreputable but potentially illegal manner, then that would be

:54:36. > :54:44.taken into consideration. The call for evidence... We've heard powerful

:54:45. > :54:47.evidence today in relation to both Crossrail and Big Ben. Does the

:54:48. > :54:54.honourable lady agree that if there is evidence of complicity in

:54:55. > :55:00.blacklisting, that the companies concerned should not get public

:55:01. > :55:03.contracts in future until such time as they have remedied the bad

:55:04. > :55:10.practices of the past, and indeed the present? The Shadow minister

:55:11. > :55:14.makes a reasonable point, which I will consider further. I think there

:55:15. > :55:21.is nothing to disagree with in what he has said. We want to build upon

:55:22. > :55:27.the work already undertaken by the Information Commissioner's office

:55:28. > :55:30.looking at profiling and big data analytics. The Information

:55:31. > :55:34.Commissioner's coffer evidence will be the most recent and authoritative

:55:35. > :55:37.source of data we have and I can assure you the government will

:55:38. > :55:42.consider the evidence they collect and they report upon it very

:55:43. > :55:49.carefully indeed. I want to acknowledge the request from beam

:55:50. > :55:53.right honourable friend. I have indeed received correspondence from

:55:54. > :55:58.Mr Alan Wainwright, I have looked at it briefly and I will examine it

:55:59. > :56:02.thoroughly, and also he asks me to look again at the situation with

:56:03. > :56:08.regard to the Shrewsbury 24 and I will write to him on that subject as

:56:09. > :56:13.well. The government will continue to take a very close interest in

:56:14. > :56:19.this matter and if the Information Commissioner finds any evidence of

:56:20. > :56:24.current blacklisting, perpetrators can expect to fill the full force of

:56:25. > :56:27.the law. I'm sure going back to the Shadow Minister's intervention, this

:56:28. > :56:33.would have implications for contracting as well. In the

:56:34. > :56:36.meantime, in the absence of clear, strong and compelling evidence to

:56:37. > :56:41.the effect that blacklisting is widespread, we remain of the view

:56:42. > :56:44.that blacklisting regulations alongside the proposed changes to

:56:45. > :56:50.the data protection rules, are appropriate and robust tools, the

:56:51. > :56:56.increased fines and accountability of further disincentives to counter

:56:57. > :57:05.this abhorrent and illegal practice. The call for evidence I would urge

:57:06. > :57:09.all members to talk to their constituents that raise these

:57:10. > :57:13.matters with them, talk to the trade unionists in their constituency who

:57:14. > :57:21.had been affected, and use this coffer evidence as a means of

:57:22. > :57:26.exposing any current practices that might be continuing so we can

:57:27. > :57:31.eradicate this appalling abuse of people's human rights at work once

:57:32. > :57:37.and for all. Would you to wind up for a minute or so? First of all I'm

:57:38. > :57:40.very grateful to all the members who have contributed to this debate and

:57:41. > :57:47.the powerful testimony that several have given. I welcome the minister

:57:48. > :57:49.saying that she will present the Information Commissioner to do this

:57:50. > :57:55.call for evidence this year and not next year. I also welcome the fact

:57:56. > :57:59.she has said the government is going to consider taking into account

:58:00. > :58:02.whether people were involved or are involved with blacklisting in public

:58:03. > :58:06.procurement decisions going forward. The second thing is, in this

:58:07. > :58:14.industry clearly there are but good and bad sides. I've seen some of the

:58:15. > :58:17.good sides visiting big construction sites in my constituency which will

:58:18. > :58:22.make a positive difference to my community. But what this scandal

:58:23. > :58:29.exposes is the ugly underbelly of this sector, which continues to go

:58:30. > :58:35.on addressed. -- unaddressed. The Minister accept that this is an

:58:36. > :58:40.outrage and she has said that the government takes this seriously and

:58:41. > :58:44.is not complacent. I still fail to understand why today she wasn't able

:58:45. > :58:49.to come here and commit to that public enquiry. I don't understand

:58:50. > :58:53.what it is the government is so afraid of. If it exposes

:58:54. > :59:00.embarrassing things for people politically that happened in the

:59:01. > :59:06.past, so what? Surely justice is the key here. That's how we prove that

:59:07. > :59:11.this Parliament is relevant and that actually, for all the bad press this

:59:12. > :59:14.place gets, and given how disillusioned people with the

:59:15. > :59:20.political process, at least with this we can illustrate that we

:59:21. > :59:25.deliver the goods and care about people. I ask her, please think

:59:26. > :59:29.again about this issue of doing the public enquiry. Don't be scared,

:59:30. > :59:38.just announce you are going to do it. As many as are of the opinion,

:59:39. > :59:39.say aye. To the contrary, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

:59:40. > :59:47.Order, order.