House of Commons
Friday 30 January 2004
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]
Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.34 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am absolutely delighted to be here as the first runner in the private Member's Bill race for this Session—I was tremendously surprised to come top in the ballot. I have not been at all short of advice on what I should do and say, not only today, but throughout the rest of the Bill's progress. In excess of 30 alternative Bills were offered to me by various individuals and organisations, but I believe that the Bill that I have brought to the House today is the best of the bunch.
I am very pleased to introduce a Bill that has the support of Members—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am not sure whose electronic device that is, but Members in the Chamber, and others, should be aware that they are absolutely forbidden.
Mr. Stunell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am very pleased to introduce a Bill that has the support of Members on both sides of the House and of many outside organisations. Without running through the whole catalogue, I would particularly like to thank the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), for agreeing to sponsor my Bill, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), whose Sustainable Energy Bill in the previous Session was one of a long line of private Member's Bills that have moved forward this extremely important policy area.
From outside the House, I have had the active support and help of WWF, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Town and Country Planning Association and the National Security Inspectorate. I want to say thank you very much to all those who supported me in my preparatory work.
It is right to bring legislation before this House only if certain tests have been met. First, is there really a problem that needs a solution? Secondly, could something else be done that would achieve the same objectives more simply, more quickly and more
cheaply? Thirdly, is it capable of making a difference and of achieving the desired impact? I want to spend a few minutes showing that my Bill passes those tests.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Of course it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to set out his tests, but does he accept that some of us may have other tests? Did he give any thought to the impact on the hapless consumer and taxpayer, or is that beyond his purview?
Mr. Stunell: I should like to give a positive answer to both the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I am delighted to see him here, and I hope that if he detects any weakness in my case, he will not hesitate to draw it to my attention.
Mr. Stunell: I thought that I could rely on him in that regard.
Ian Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): Following the negative point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), does the hon. Gentleman agree that for the sake of an initial cost, people will feel much more secure and enjoy a better visual environment if his Bill goes through?
Mr. Stunell: I believe that to be the case, and I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I turn first to the part of my Bill that deals with crime and crime reduction. I could deluge the House with crime figures and statistics. To be frank, many of those have been devalued, but there is no doubt about the distress, damage and economic costs involved in burglary, house-breaking and attempted break-ins. That is well documented, and every Member will have examples. I could regale the House with many heart-breaking stories about the impact of crime on individuals and the often devastating effect on their lives and families when intruders come into their home and defile it. I have little doubt that it was anger, fear and a devastating sense of violation that drove so many listeners of the "Today" programme to respond so fiercely to its poll to ascertain which private Member's Bill should be introduced. Perhaps on another day, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) will have something to add to that story. The Bill does not deal with the issues that some of those people were concerned about, but lays the foundations for a cut in crime.
There has been much correspondence since it became known what the Bill would achieve, but not all of it has been positive. One of my hon. Friends has passed me a letter from a constituent, which states:
- "Break-ins . . . could be dramatically reduced if those caught had a hand removed. It would make things much more difficult the second time."
I was surprised to find that builders and developers can turn a blind eye to the crime prevention advice that they receive. When preparing for the Bill, I had a meeting with Mr. Michael Hodge, Greater Manchester police's architectural liaison officer. Mr. Hodge is a
chartered surveyor, not a police officer. He and his team are responsible for advising builders and developers on sensible crime reduction design and crime reduction features in buildings. They are consulted about approximately 3,000 applications a year in the whole of Greater Manchester. At first, that sounds fine, but when one considers the matter in detail, the figure accounts for only one fifth of the applications that are made. The advice that the team can give is limited to planning matters such as spaces, alleyways and dark corners around buildings, not buildings' locks, doors and windows. Moreover, the advice can be ignored.Mr. Hodge gave me a couple of examples. One relates to the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who has taken up the matter. He is unable to be here this morning, but I hope that he will not mind my using some of his ammunition.
The houses built by the Redrow Homes development on the Wythenshawe estate have windows of an inferior design and can easily be broken into by those of an evil disposition. The police got fed up with going to the Redrow Homes estate week after week to find that exactly the same means of entry had been used every time—the defective windows. The hugely disproportionate use of police time was a major anxiety to them. They naturally approached Redrow Homes and asked whether something could be done to fix those windows. The answer was no: Redrow no longer has any legal liability because the homes have been sold. There is therefore a built-in problem with that estate and window design.
Mr. Hodge's complaint is not simply that the problem arose, but that Redrow Homes is now building an identical estate with identical window design in Eccles—and nobody can stop it. There are no rules or regulations; the advice can simply be ignored.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely. Will he deal with two points that arise from his example? First, how does he envisage enforcement operating if a builder does not comply with the advice? Secondly, how would the Bill help with existing buildings? Will it be retrospective and impose duties on owners or occupiers, or will it apply only to brand new buildings?
Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sensible questions, which I hope to tackle later, not least because one of the clauses specifically deals with them. The matter must be approached carefully because a balance needs to be struck. I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman once I have proceeded a little further.
Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the nonsense of the use of defective and insecure materials in Wythenshawe and a proposal to use them again in my Eccles constituency. Does he agree that it is frustrating for Members of Parliament and local councillors when they do not have powers to prevent such things from happening? Is not that one reason for supporting the Bill?
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is right. Most frustrated of all are the police, whose resources are used
night after night to respond to crime that should not be permitted to happen. We are not only considering frustration; let us think of the households that suffer intrusion and have their property violated. As we know, it provokes the most intense emotional response from people.
Mr. Forth: I presume that because the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, he will discuss the responsibility of the individual. So far, we have not heard why the individual who bought the house—presumably after advice from chartered surveyors and solicitors—does not complain that the law is not intervening to protect him. When does the individual come into the argument?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |