European Council

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In the midst of these important and inevitably contentious exchanges, may I ask the House to join me in warmly welcoming in the Gallery today the former Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament David Carter, accompanied by Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, the honourable Anne Tolley MP? It is a great delight to welcome you both. You come from a country that we regard as a great friend, and David you have been a great friend to us and to me. Welcome.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the fact that she, a Conservative Unionist Prime Minister, signed up to the backstop originally without ensuring that she would get support in Parliament for it? The only vote that went through with a big majority was the Brady amendment. Has she really done her best to get the backstop removed? It must be removed before the House will support her withdrawal agreement.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend is quite right. On that basis, we would have to have general elections practically every month. Some people might change their minds the day after they voted. We cannot go down the road.

I have a big remain constituency, but I have made very clear from day one—and I shall have been in this place for 30 years in June—that I want us to get out of the EU. Everyone has known my views, so I have no apology to make for campaigning to leave. A constituent wrote to me saying that he had thought that the manifestos of the Labour party and Conservative party—the two main parties—had said, “We will implement the result of the referendum.” There is nothing difficult about the word “leave”. It is very simple. Members have deliberately made it difficult here.

My constituent wrote:

“Can we the electorate now expect that anything promised in a manifesto is to be honoured, that it should be written into law, that, if you promise a course of action, you must follow through and make it happen.”

Why, he asked, do party leaders order three-line whips so that what they promised in the manifesto can be reneged on?

I think that we are in a very dangerous situation in the House. We are trying to thwart the will of the people, but democracy cannot be compromised. Outside, there is huge anger. We may not see it here in London, particularly in areas where there was a large remain vote, but there is huge anger elsewhere, and it is growing. We have backed ourselves into a hole, and now the only way out is for us either to leave with a World Trade Organisation agreement, or to find a way in which the withdrawal agreement can be changed so that we can accept it—and that means that there must be a change in the backstop.

Nearly all the motions involve compromise. I make no apology for saying that I do not think we should be compromising with the electorate. I mean no criticism of you, Mr Speaker, but it is very unfortunate that motion (E) was not selected, because it is the one motion that we could all have gone along with, if we believed in the referendum result. Anyone who votes to revoke tonight is actually saying, “We do not accept that result— we never did, and we never will.” I hope that that motion will be turned down.

[Mr Speaker]

I have now to announce the results of the deferred Divisions held earlier today. I shall do so with the greatest possible dispatch.

The Question relating to relationships and sex education requires a majority of Members of the House and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England if it is to be agreed to. The totals for Members of the House were as follows: the Ayes were 538 and the Noes were 21. The totals for Members representing constituencies in England were as follows: the Ayes were 482 and the Noes were 14, so the Ayes have it.

In respect of the Question relating to animal welfare, the Ayes were 322 and the Noes were 15, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to rural development, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 239, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to rural development, with, in brackets—I merely remind the House of what it knows itself—the words “Rules and Decisions”, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 240, so the Ayes have it.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am well familiar with “Erskine May.” The House’s ownership of its Standing Orders is a matter of established fact, which has been of long-standing significance. As to what happens in the period to come, we shall have to see. I am extraordinarily obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not mean it in any spirit of discourtesy, but he has not told me something that I did not know. I am deeply grateful to him, and I feel sure he is pleased that he has made his point.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today we voted on a business motion for the proceedings today and on Monday. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) would have allowed us to vote on removing paragraph (2) so that we do not vote on Monday. This special arrangement was originally going to be for one day. I understand that you decided not to select the amendment but, given the problems we now have, would it not be sensible to vote again tomorrow on whether we actually want to continue with this on Monday?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you rule on what the constitutional position would be if the statutory instrument to change the date that is already in our legislation were not accepted by the House? Does EU law overrule our Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

As a matter of general practice, it is well established that EU law trumps UK national law. I am not saying anything controversial there. As to the particular circumstances here, the answer is that I might well pronounce upon it but I would be extremely foolish to do so off the top of my head. I may be able to sate the curiosity of the hon. Lady, which will be widely shared across the House, but I am afraid that it is not within my gift to do so now. It is better to give a valid and informative answer later than to give an invalid, uninformative and potentially misleading answer now.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Again, one has to reflect on the particulars. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the issue is not the pain of any vote, which is a subjective matter upon which I do not think I should pontificate—especially as I do not cast such, other than in the circumstance of a tie, which has not arisen since 1993 in this Chamber—but its propriety.

It is absolutely true that the House has legislated in respect of article 50—I believe it did so in March 2017 in the last Parliament—and that that has created a strong expectation, but whether Parliament chooses to legislate on this matter or, as the Government have signalled in recent days, depending on circumstance, to request a particular extension, is a matter for the House. I do not think that the issue of pain really comes into it; it is just a question of what is proper.

I know that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known since we competed with each other in Bristol South in June 1989, is a stickler for propriety. [Interruption.] I am asked who won. It would not be seemly to say, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s result at the 1992 election was rather better than mine.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously we fully endorse and respect your statement. On a point of clarification, I want to ask something that I am sure people out there will be asking when they read this statement today. On 29 January, the House of Commons voted against the SNP and Plaid Cymru amendment on extending the article 50 period and ruling out no deal by 327 votes to 39. We obviously voted again on those matters last week. Will you clarify why that did not fall under the same ruling?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have to look back at those particular votes. I did not receive advice at that time about non-compliance. I do not think that there was a general sense in the House that there was an issue of non-compliance, and I was not asked to rule on it. Matters are already treated of by the Table Office on the basis of established custom and practice. If those matters were accepted on to the paper, the issue of selection would have been for me, in the interests of facilitating the debate. However, the issue of propriety was not raised with me at that time.

Article 50 Extension Procedure

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Two things are very clear today. One is that our country is being humiliated by the European Union—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but the House must try to calm itself. In particular, the hon. Lady must be heard—and however many times her question needs to be put, it will be heard.

[Kate Hoey]

I was going to add, Mr Speaker, that that humiliation is being helped by some people in this House.

The second thing that is so true today is that any extension of article 50 will be seen as, and is, a betrayal of the referendum vote. When the Prime Minister goes to the Council this week, will she go cap in hand, as she seems to have done, and ask for more for the agreement—for some changes? Or will she go and say very clearly, “This deal has not been accepted by Parliament, so therefore we are leaving, as Parliament voted, on 29 March”?

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we are about to hear a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but is it right that half an hour ago the BBC Northern Ireland website more or less gave us the whole statement? We might as well not be hearing it from the Secretary of State. The detail of everything that she is going to say has been on the BBC Northern Ireland website; we have all read it in the past half hour.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, if that is so—the hon. Lady will appreciate that I was not in a position to know about it as I have been in the Chair since 9.30 this morning—it is extremely unsatisfactory. I must say that I have always regarded the Secretary of State as a person of unimpeachable integrity, and of real courtesy and commitment to the House. This is therefore very, very disappointing. Sometimes—we will hear from the Secretary of State in a moment as she is signalling that she wishes to contribute—Ministers themselves do not make material available but other people, supposedly acting on their behalf, do so. However, Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in, or relating to, their Departments, so I am very perturbed to hear what the hon. Lady has said. Let us hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are making far too much noise in the Chamber. I am quite sure it is not something I would ever have done as a Back-Bench Member, and I am sure the House wishes to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—and that is what it is going to do anyway.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

7. If she will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to ensure people of Northern Ireland have the right to choose to compete in sporting events for the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

Under the terms of the devolution settlement, responsibility for sporting events such as the Commonwealth youth games is a matter for the devolved Administration. The Government are continuing to work towards the restoration of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland for precisely that reason. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear the voice of Vauxhall.

[Kate Hoey]

I am afraid that that is really not good enough from the Secretary of State. Northern Ireland has won the right to host this hugely important sporting event, and the Secretary of State must make these decisions. We cannot wait until we get another Executive, which could be a very long time coming. The decision must be made, and the Secretary of State must actually show that she is in charge.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am sure that millions of members of the public think that our Government are not being tough enough with the European Union, and that in these negotiations, we should say clearly that the EU is stopping the continued co-operation—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very keen to accommodate colleagues, and please rest assured that I will do everything I can to do so, but the hon. Lady must be heard.

[Kate Hoey]

The EU is stopping the co-operation, which has been very good, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That could continue, but the EU is stopping it. Is it not time that the Government said so?

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State said yes.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s firm rebuttal of the ridiculous idea that Northern Ireland would be taken out of the rest of the United Kingdom and made to stay in a customs union. Does he also recognise that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently met the head of customs in Switzerland, which is not in the EU, and the one thing that he said over and again was that there was nothing that could stop this from working if there was full co-operation on all sides? Is that not what this is really all about—if the Republic of Ireland do not want to have a hard border, that can happen?

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to clarify who is responsible for dealing with the increasing problem of urban foxes, about which I have had huge numbers of complaints recently? No one takes responsibility. I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, the setting up of a Vauxhall hunt, but I am seeking to satisfy and help those of my constituents whose lives in their homes are being made intolerable by foxes. What can be done, and who takes responsibility, other than people saying, “They’re lovely”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the more ubiquitous the hon. Lady is in the Vauxhall constituency, the more terrified the foxes will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of whether Zimbabwe’s next election will be conducted freely and fairly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister, the right hon. Tobias Ellwood. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In Zimbabwe, presidential and parliamentary elections are due to take place in 2018, but time is running out to implement the necessary preparations to allow voter registration to be completed. We regularly raise our concerns and the importance of free and fair elections, and this was done most recently on 21 March with the deputy Foreign Minister.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

No, I will not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had 22 minutes in which to speak.

[Mr Speaker]

It was 17 in fact.

[Kate Hoey]

Mr Speaker, my maths are not as good as yours.

The other matter I want to raise is this idea that if someone voted to leave, they are, if not an outright racist, an indirect racist. It is ridiculous and appalling that the 17 million people who voted to leave are being treated in that way. We know that those people were against not immigrants, but the idea that people from 27 other countries—26 excluding the Republic of Ireland —could come into our country for no other reason than that they could do so. That did not apply to people outside the European Union. We betrayed the people from the Commonwealth so badly back in 1973, yet they had no right to come here. It is all about getting back control. I know that that sounds like a cliché, but it is what we are doing—taking back control of our own country.

Once we have left the European Union, we will probably have sharp disagreements in the House and not so many cross-party views on a lot of the issues. We want to build—I certainly want to build—a post-Brexit UK that looks at spending priorities that might be very different from those proposed by Members on the other side of the House. I want to look at how we can use new freedoms on state aid in our country, and in order to do that, we must trigger article 50 and get into the negotiations. Our businesses and the country generally want us to get on with it. We have left ourselves in a situation in which we are spending two days of debate on a very simple Bill. The amendments will be considered next week, one or two of which I hope the Government will accept, but the reality is that this is a process that needs to be triggered. We need to do it soon, and the public expect us to do that. I have hope that we can look forward to negotiations that will take this country not to the forbidding place that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) mentioned—I have no foreboding about our future outside the European Union—but to a bright future. That will happen tomorrow night when we vote to trigger article 50.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kate Hoey.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Me?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady looks so surprised. She is rarely a shy or retiring soul. If she is, she must overcome her shyness.

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister is well aware that the fire and rescue services collaborate well all over the country, particularly with the ambulance trusts. Why does he consider it necessary for police and crime commissioners to take control of the fire services under the Bill? Surely the two organisations are so different in so many ways that collaboration is possible without the PCC running our fire services.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has said is predominantly why—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up—a point that I had not spotted. I am being more courteous than I need to be, but it seems discourteous to deprive the hon. Lady. Would she like to finish blurting out what she wanted to say?

[Kate Hoey]

I am saying that my hon. Friend provides a reason why the trade union movement and trade unionists across the country are catching on to this more and more. Is this not why trade unionists are speaking out and beginning to join and get involved in the campaign to leave?

Vauxhall Bus Station

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That is another important reason why the whole scheme is so ridiculous.

Vauxhall is the second busiest interchange in London, after Victoria. It is used by 2,000 buses per day. Nearly one in four of London’s buses use the station. It serves 14 bus routes, 11 of which are daytime routes. Three routes offer a 24-hour service. The three night routes are used frequently by many of the LGBT community who visit the clubs in that area. Every day, 712 Victoria line tube trains and 739 mainline trains go through Vauxhall. It really is a hub. Forty-five thousand commuters go through it each day. The largest group by far are bus users, who include the most vulnerable—the old, disabled people, parents with young children—all of whom make disproportionate use of buses because of the ease of access and frequent stops. Many change from bus to bus at Vauxhall. Others change from the tube or the train. Getting the bus interchange right is crucial to keeping traffic moving across a wide area of central and south London.

So where does the proposal to demolish the bus station come from? It did not originate from TfL. It was first made public in Lambeth Council’s draft supplementary planning document way back in 2012. That talked about looking at replacing the bus station with

“a series of relocated bus stops.”

In November 2013, in the local plan, the council stated that it wanted to work

“towards the removal of the gyratory. At the outset this will involve remodelling the bus station so that the canopy is removed and bus stops and stands are relocated to allow for the introduction of the high street”.

That intention was repeated in presentations time after time. In 2014, there were initial consultations. Now, finally, TfL is consulting on a scheme that looks at getting rid of the gyratory. However, it claims that to do that the bus station must be removed. Artists’ impressions, but no detailed designs, of the plans for the bus station show a series of bus stops around two or more high-density, multi-storey commercial developments.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State’s inspector, reporting on the Lambeth local plan submission in 2015, concluded that it should be reworded so that it stated that removal of the gyratory “may” be necessary, not “will” be necessary. Although we understand that Lambeth has accepted the inspector’s changes, that has not been published on the website. Lambeth is obviously trying to disregard that change of emphasis.

A majority of people, including local residents, agree that replacing the one-way roads—the gyratory—at Vauxhall is desirable. But that does not mean they want the bus station to go. They have never been asked whether they want it to go. A local community group, Our Vauxhall, which includes local architects and traffic engineers as well as residents, has produced an ambitious plan for the area which goes much further than the one put forward by Lambeth and TfL. Its plan has been enthusiastically backed by local residents, including at well-attended public meetings that heard repeated demands to keep the bus station.

TfL obviously wants to rubbish Our Vauxhall’s plan. TfL put all sorts of wrong things on the website about it. It has tried to pretend that it has modelled the scheme. We know it has not. It has stated that it would not work, without giving any reasons. It has just done what it assumes it can get away with—that is, say what it wants to say and people will have to go along with it.

On 19 December, TfL published a statement about the scheme claiming to have done a comprehensive review. That contained some blatantly false and misleading statements that are now subject to a formal complaint. We have raised the matter with the Transport Commissioner and Leon Daniels. I am confident that in a straight competition Our Vauxhall’s plans would outperform TfL’s on a range of measures, including overall road safety and total distance travelled. They would also be much cheaper and quicker to implement and would avoid some of the issues that my right hon. Friend raised.

So what does TfL or Lambeth get out of abolishing the bus station? The proposal seems to be linked to the huge developments at Nine Elms and plans for the Northern line extension to Battersea and Nine Elms. Lambeth used the opportunity of the Northern line extension to negotiate a deal with TfL which culminated in an agreement about Vauxhall’s redevelopment in November 2013. Lots of discussions have been going on about that.

TfL is a landowner in the area. The consultation does not include any new commercial development over and above what is needed to support the transport interchange. If any further development is proposed in the future, it would be subject to planning permission. That is what TfL says. Londoners, including local residents, are being asked to accept a pig in a poke—“Agree to the plans to demolish the bus station and then we’ll show you what our plans involve.” TfL wants to get rid of this fine facility just to free up the land for some unspecified private development.

What do bus passengers get out of Transport for London’s plan? What is being proposed is not a new bus station. That is perhaps the most shocking part of the whole exercise. There will be bus stops on pavements in four separate locations. Half the buses will stop at the side of heavily used main roads—Wandsworth Road and Kennington Lane. There is to be a huge high-rise development between some of those stops and the others near Bondway. Changing buses will be less straightforward, especially for those with mobility problems. There will be less space to wait in. Passengers will be waiting on crowded roadside pavements which will be less safe, more polluted and with less shelter, even in the planned new central area. The present canopy is very good because it extends over the roadside as well as the waiting area, so passengers do not get wet as they get on to the bus.

There is a feeling of safety in that station. Yes, we could make it greener and make other improvements, but it certainly does not need to be knocked down. The most important aspect is that Lambeth and TfL have not played fair in their consultation. At no stage has the option of retaining the bus station in its current form been put to residents or anyone else. Indeed, in January 2014 a motion to include an option to retain the status quo was explicitly rejected in an amendment moved by the leader of the council.

The community’s solution for Vauxhall shows that it is possible to retain the existing bus station structure by modifying certain entrances and exits and to get rid of the gyratory system. If the current plans for Vauxhall go ahead, the Minister must know that the second busiest bus station in London will be turned into a building site for several years, with a reduction in bus services and unacceptable disruption for all passengers. The consultation period on the plans began in December and is due to end on 17 January. We have repeatedly asked for that to be extended because it covered the Christmas holiday period and was deliberately set up to confuse people. Arranging meetings was very difficult. There is some sharp practice here, I believe.

On the maps that have been produced, interestingly, all the symbols denoting the bus stops have been placed as far apart as possible on the maps of the existing area, and as close together as possible on the proposed plan. The maps do not show accurately what will be there and how bad it will be. TfL has sent out emails to those on its Oyster card database, but that database does not include freedom pass holders, pensioners and the elderly, who we know are heavy users of the station.

At the recent public meeting people were very angry with TfL because they felt they were being—I know that I cannot use the expression “lied to”, but whatever the equivalent parliamentary term is, they felt that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to accuse people outside the House of lying. She cannot accuse someone in the House of lying. So she was in order, even if she did not know she was.

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to say that and I will do so because people felt that very strongly.

TfL said that it was trying to get the consultation on the plans “out of the way” by March—that means before the mayoral elections, as public bodies will enter a period of purdah in March. It has refused to extend the deadline and there has been no wider consultation in the area of Waterloo, Westminster or Southwark. Today the first meeting was held in Wandsworth in the Clapham library near Clapham Junction, and I understand that one person turned up in the first half hour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, on the Union flag, I call Kate Hoey.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

10. What recent representations she has received on use of the Union flag on driving licences in Northern Ireland.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

This shocking report should unite all of us in this House, all political parties and all communities to see what we can do to make sure these things never happen again. Just at this moment a little boy is sitting in a prison in Spain, a very long way away from his parents. Will the Home Secretary make it clear that the Crown Prosecution Service will be asked to rescind the legal document, because it is shocking that this is happening now? Whatever the original reasons, it should not be happening now, and this document should be rescinded and the family allowed to be together.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has shoehorned that matter into this urgent question. It is not relevant to the question, but it is of great interest to the House and we look forward to a pithy reply from the Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have always practised that philosophy myself: however long it takes, we are going to get through them.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that recently it has gone into the public domain that more than 365 people in Northern Ireland were given the royal prerogative of mercy, despite 10 years of files being lost. Will he give a commitment that those names will be made public? After all, if the Queen takes the time to sign 365 names, surely the public and particularly the victims have the right to know.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any message from the Minister for Europe that he would like to come along and make a statement to Parliament on the decision of the European Parliament today not to support the budget—to throw out the budget that we in this Parliament asked to be cut?

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication from a Minister. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is a ready source of information. She has now enlightened the House. I had not heard that news, but I imagine that it will now be well known to the Treasury Bench and her remarks will very soon find their way to Ministers, so my advice to her is that she should remain alert for any developments that might arise. I thank her for what she said.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

In my simple way, that is what I am trying to say. We are beginning to look really out of touch. It is beginning to look as though we are not interested in the people we were elected to represent. I believe that tonight is the night when we can make that difference and really change things.

I must make an apology. I am very lucky that my constituency is literally five minutes away and I agreed some time ago that at 6 o’clock I would light the bonfire on Hallowe’en night. I shall leave to light the bonfire and I shall come back to vote. I hope that on that bonfire there might be something to signify something about the European Union; it would be rather nice if there were. It is not likely, however.

Finally, I ask Members to realise that they should not worry about who is with them in the Lobby tonight. They should not worry about whether they are in the Lobby with people with whom they would rather not be in the Lobby. They should recognise that they are going into that Lobby to represent the people who elected them and should think about what they would want them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has a hectic social schedule, to which we have all become privy, and I understand that she will have to leave at some point, but I know that she will want to hear the next speech.

[Kate Hoey]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to her. I call Mr Peter Bone.

Short-life Homes (Lambeth)

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who, for whatever reason, quite unaccountably, are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is afforded the same courtesy for her Adjournment debate as they would want for theirs.

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you very much for those words, Mr Speaker, although I do not think the House will stay full for much longer.

It is with a great deal of sadness that I hold this Adjournment debate, but it is important that the House understands what is happening just over the river in Lambeth in terms of short-life housing disposals. If there were any kind of legislation on wording, using the description “short-life” would almost be in breach of it, because the homes are not short life in the sense that people have lived in them for only a few months. Many of the people I shall refer to will have been in their homes for 30 years or more—most of them for between 15 and 25 years.

There is a history in Lambeth. Short-life housing co-ops were formed in about 1980 to make use of Lambeth council properties that were in too bad a condition to let normally, but that Lambeth could not afford to repair to a lettable standard. Housing co-operatives were given licences to use those properties, usually by a secondary agency, typically a housing association. Initially, short-life meant short-life, six months being the normal period, but owing to Lambeth’s general mismanagement and policies that seemed to change every 10 years, many people have been in their homes for more than 30 years. One resident, Steve Drake, who lives in Nealden street in a co-op, has been there now for 31 years.

Through the mid and late 1980s and into the 1990s many housing co-ops became established as the properties that they managed became more long term. As I said, the phrase “short-life” became a misnomer. There were various schemes involving many properties attracting some limited funding via schemes such as Mini-HAG, which was mini housing association grants administered by the then Housing Corporation. That finished in about 2000. Housing co-ops needed an income to pay for the maintenance of the properties that they managed and the day-to-day running of the co-op, so co-op members paid rent, the amount agreed by members of each individual co-op.

Throughout that 30-year history of housing co-ops, Lambeth has changed its policy at various times, thought about recalling the short-life properties and threatened evictions at various times, but as recently as 1997, which does not seem such a long time ago, Mr Drake got a letter from the then chair of housing, Labour’s housing spokesperson in Lambeth, saying:

“I write to you further to your letter of 29 June 1997, to update you on the situation regarding shortlife housing.

I am pleased to say that at the last Housing Committee meeting at the beginning of September, we succeeded in persuading the other parties to back our proposals for proper negotiations with the shortlife housing co-ops. I am sure that … the Lambeth Federation of Housing Co-ops has been in touch with you … and I hope that as a result of this work, it will be possible to come to an agreement which allows the current residents to stay in their homes.”

That was from Tom Franklin, who was then the councillor in charge.

Shortly after that, the council seemed to change its policy. It did not seem to make much difference whether it was a Labour council, a coalition council or a hung council. The policy got into one of those files that seem to sit around local authorities, and for many years the residents had no idea what was happening, but they carried on with their co-ops, some of which were very successful. The Short Stock housing co-op—I have named the person who has been leading that, Steve Drake—has been going extremely well, and is part of the Lambeth Self Help scheme that involved buying Short Stock’s properties with tenants in situ. The plan was that the very large property would be worked on and could be sold, but that everybody would be allowed to stay in their houses and renovate them. The people in Nealden street and in Morat street have stayed on. During that time Lambeth had 100% nomination rights to any vacancies that came up.

Last year Lambeth Self Help was approached by Lambeth council. It submitted a plan, which the council wanted revised, given the change in central Government policy on social housing rents. The plan was resubmitted and rejected, then re-submitted and rejected again. Finally, Lambeth changed its policy in the summer and now wants to sell off all the remaining properties housing families of different sizes—there are roughly 150 of them—and the council wants to do a deal. It originally wanted to do a deal with Hyde Housing. Hyde Housing had come to an arrangement whereby some of those residents would be able to stay in their homes when they were bought.

That fell through because Lambeth did not think it was getting enough money. It has been in negotiation with Notting Hill Housing, which is making clear its opinion that it is doing Lambeth a favour. It will buy the properties and immediately put 80% of them on the open market, leaving 20% as affordable houses in Lambeth. I can understand that, as there is a shortage of capital, although Lambeth has not said that that money will go into housing. It has said that some of the money—we do not know how much—will go towards reducing the shortage of school places in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). If there is money going out of housing to the council, it should come back into Lambeth to be used for housing, as there is a huge waiting list.

In the meantime, the council has said that it wants vacant possession, and every property must be empty by the time the deal goes through with Notting Hill Housing. Notting Hill Housing told me that it might have been prepared to consider taking on some of the residents who were adequately housed and in social need, but Lambeth council said that it wanted to give them with vacant possession, and Notting Hill Housing then said that it would take the properties only with vacant possession.

Lambeth’s legal firm, Devonshires, which must be making a fortune out of this, is now going to the courts in Lambeth or Wandsworth week after week to try to get the long-term residents evicted. On almost every occasion the courts have said, “Hang on, we haven’t got all the facts and we want to know more.” A number of cases have been postponed over and over again, costing Lambeth huge amounts of money each time. Many of the properties are in a really good state. There is absolutely no reason why they could not be kept by the council or, if they go to Notting Hill Housing, left with the current residents, who have maintained them to a high standard for over 20 years.

I simply do not understand how a housing association can get away with spending a lot of money buying up properties from a local authority that has tenants who need housing and then planning to sell off 80% of them. They are not trading organisations. I thought that the point of a housing association was to provide housing. I find Notting Hill Housing’s attitude very strange. If it is doing this as a favour to Lambeth, I do not think that it is much of a favour to the people living in the properties. The most recent communication I received from Notting Hill Housing on 30 November indicated that it was

“clear that the properties will be sold to us with vacant possession. That means that the Council will evict all the current residents. We will then refurbish 20 per cent, and will sell up to 80 per cent of them. This is the assumption so that we can give the Council the kind of receipt they require. I know this is distressing for many of the residents who have lived here for many years but I understand the council will rehouse everyone”.

Of course they will get an offer from the council.

I want to give some examples of the people who live in the properties and how they have been involved for many years in the local community, in campaigning organisations and in all the things that are so important to an inner-city area. The Cope family live at 26b Stockwell Park road. Indeed, some hon. Members live around that area, which is probably one of the most expensive in my constituency. Another long-term resident lives next to them, at 24b. The family have been in a short-life residence there since 1987, originally part of the Ekarro housing co-operative, which became a different housing co-op, and finally they ended up with South London Family Housing Association, which was later taken over by Amicus, which was when the licence was withdrawn from the housing association. The family have done all the repairs in the house and managed to prevent the ground-floor flat next door, which was owned by Lambeth council and had been empty for years, being squatted by what I call real squatters—I am not opposed to the squatting of long-term empty houses in some cases. The family have done all the work on that house but are now being told that they must move out, which will probably mean the loss of the last two or three remaining houses in affordable social housing in the middle of one of the most expensive areas.

The Cope family is very much part of the community, and all the residents of the Stockwell Park residents association have signed a letter stating that they want the family to remain. It just does not make common sense, because they will be moved into another Lambeth property that someone on a waiting list might have their eye on, and at the same time the family might be moved out of their community to somewhere many miles away from where their children go to school—and for what purpose? In the end the property will either go back to another tenant, if it happens to be in the 20% that Notting Hill keeps, or it will be sold on the open market.

Just up the road, literally four houses up, 20 Stockwell Park road was one of those short-life properties. The resident was evicted—taken away, asked to get out—a few years ago; the property was squatted; Lambeth got rid of the squatters and re-did the place with new bathrooms and kitchens in two of the flats; three weeks later it was squatted again; and the squatters in one flat have not been removed. So, the council has spent a lot of money on its own property, allowed it to be squatted by people with no housing need and, at the same time, is trying to get rid of people who do have housing need.

The Clapham North Housing Co-operative is a very active co-op, with a substantial number of properties—19 homes—on which people still pay rent, and Lambeth could have negotiated with it. The negotiations started, stopped and then Lambeth changed its mind, so now, despite saying at the bottom of every letter that it is a co-op council, it is getting rid of co-ops. I speak as someone with many co-ops in the north of my borough and in Bishop’s ward, such as the Coin Street housing co-operatives, and I have seen the value of co-ops and how they link people with their community.

We have some terrible individual cases. Heidi Usher, of 12 Thorpe Park road, has been there for many years. She has been adequately housed, with four children in her home, which she has kept beautifully, having done all the work herself, but she is now being taken to court. Fortunately, yesterday when she went to court, the magistrate said, “This is ridiculous, this needs more than an hour. I need at least a day,” and has deferred the case until 28 February. So, every case is being put back, and that gives the Minister an opportunity to intervene and do something that would give those people hope, because it does not make common sense.

I want to ask the Minister some questions that he might or might not be able to answer. Many of these issues have occurred because of the local authority’s inadequacy and incompetence over many years, for which we can blame many people, but at the end of the day the people who are suffering are the residents, whose fault it is not. The cost of all those legal cases could have adequately brought some of the homes up to the decent homes standard.

On the decent homes standard, when I visit those residents I feel that they are living in a decent home, as they do. It may not tick the box, because the kitchen may not be exactly like the modern kitchen that represents supposedly the decent homes standard, but, if they are happy there and adequately housed, why is the decent homes standard used as a reason to move them out?

Does the Minister share my view on what his Department could do to ensure that families are able to stay in their homes of many years? Surely the Government must have some say in the matter, because Lambeth will get Government housing money, as will Notting Hill Housing association. I should like an assurance that he understands Notting Hill Housing to be conducting the process properly, because I have concerns. about how it is doing so.

Some time ago, Lambeth offered many residents the right to buy, albeit at absolutely open-market prices, but some struggled to do so because it was their home. Will they be considered under the Government’s new policies on the right to buy at less than market value? That could be a solution.

If Notting Hill Housing buys that group of properties, can the Government do anything to stop it immediately selling off 80% of them? It seems absolutely scandalous that it can spend public money buying properties and immediately sell them.

Can the Government insist on Lambeth council and Notting Hill Housing allowing those sitting tenants and residents who are adequately housed and meet the criteria to remain tenants of the association, rather than being moved somewhere else to move in somebody who has lived in Lambeth for only a couple of years? That would at least be a fair way of looking at the issue.

Does the Minister understand the anger and misery that is being caused by a policy of moving people out of their homes of over 20 years just so that at some time in the future they will be let to new tenants? Given that there are already very well-established co-ops in other parts of the borough, will he encourage Lambeth to incorporate those that are working adequately into some kind of system that would allow those people to stay? Most of all, does the Minister think that a local authority such as Lambeth could show a little more imagination? Of course we know that there is a shortage of money everywhere, but money from the Government has been stopped and we need to get some of that investment back.

Lambeth has improved its housing management. My previous housing Adjournment debate was also about Lambeth, and I have to say that things have improved since then. Lib Peck, who is the cabinet member for housing, has done a sterling job and has bought into the whole idea of this being the only way to protect the investment. However, the council’s policy is misguided and has been built on many years of mismanagement and neglect. As I said, there are many people to blame for this, but they are not the residents.

This is a complicated situation that is somewhat historical and almost unique to Lambeth, but sometimes in such cases, where there is clear injustice, we must find a way to stop it happening. I hope that the Minister will, at the very least, offer to meet me and a group of co-op residents from across the borough so that we can explain how unjust this is, because in such a short time I have not been able to go into much depth. Not a single ordinary person would read through all the dossiers and meet these people and not say at the end of it, “This does not make common sense in 2011.”

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Hoey and John Bercow

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I respect the fact that there is concern about this issue in some sections of the House. First, I am of course aware that there has recently been a Westminster Hall debate on the subject—on 30 June if memory serves me correctly. Secondly, this is a matter for the House. The hon. Gentleman might be aware—and other Members will certainly be conscious of this—that a resolution of the House regarding the use of facilities and the ability to claim expenses that touched on precisely the matter that is of concern to him was passed on 18 December 2001. If the House wishes at any stage to consider this matter again and to debate and vote upon a resolution, it will, of course, be entirely open to the House to do so. This is, therefore, a matter not for the Speaker but for the House. I hope that is helpful.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome what you have just said, which clarifies matters. It might be worth my pointing out that there are Members on both sides of the House who share this concern and would like to see this measure come back to the House, as those of us who voted against it last time might find ourselves in the majority this time.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. As she is well aware, she has helpfully underlined and reinforced the point that the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) has just made. It is always a pleasure to be in agreement with the hon. Lady.