Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is why we are trying to gain consensus across the House through our amendments. It is important that people should be able to raise concerns appropriately and in the best way. The Bill does not allow that. Even the Foreign Secretary’s office warned No. 10 about the impact of the Bill on our foreign commitments. For that reason, we welcome amendment 7 in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which has support across the House—including from Members from the Liberal Democrat and SNP Benches. We think it will go some way to addressing the problem.

Thirdly, I want to re-emphasise the concerns raised by Members from all major parties about clause 4—the so-called gagging clause. I acknowledge the changes made to the explanatory notes in this area, but this unprecedented restriction could have far-reaching consequences for our democracy, and I urge the Secretary of State to think again. I have tabled amendment 16, which would address the issue of elected bodies. It is a mark of the concern across the House that there are so many amendments to the clause, including from Members from the Government and the SNP Benches. The seriousness of the clause must not be underestimated. It is an unprecedented restriction on the ability of the public bodies—many of them directly elected—to express a view on policy, effectively gagging them from even talking about it.

We are concerned that clause 4 would be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which protects freedom of expression. Labour’s amendment 14 seeks to remove the most sweeping provisions in the Bill through which the Secretary of State intends to hand himself unprecedented power to change the scope and application of the Bill through regulations.

Lastly, it is important to note that the Bill in its current form will not set out what it seeks to achieve. There are loopholes that will allow discriminatory acts to continue unchallenged. Our new clause 3 presents just one example, and I am sure that there are many more. The new clause requires the Government to review the impact of the Bill on discrimination, and addresses one form of it that has been raised with me—refusal to provide kosher food. We on the Labour Benches know that that impacts on many British Jews across this country, causing much distress and suffering. That is the type of concerning practice that should be tackled, but the Bill in its current form will not address it. I urge the Secretary of State to take a pause, take a step back, and consider that there might be another way through.

I assure the Secretary of State that Labour feels strongly that BDS practices against Israel offer no meaningful route to peace for the people of either Palestine or of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said on Second Reading,

“We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 527.]

But let us be clear: the effect of BDS would be the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, and there are those who use the campaign to whip up hostility towards Jewish people, providing no route to peace and a two-state solution. I can assure the Secretary of State that Labour will continue to condemn and oppose that in the strongest terms. I do not believe there is genuine disagreement between us on that point.

But let me be totally clear, too, both as a shadow Minister and as deputy leader of the Labour party: now more than ever we expect councils to bring all their communities together and represent all their citizens. It would be utterly wrong to choose one community over another—or worse, pit one against another.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I agree 100% with the right hon. Lady that we must be moderate in our tone and the language we use. Does she agree it was therefore very unhelpful for the Scottish Labour leader to use terms accusing Israel of breaching international law when we are discussing such a sensitive subject?

[Angela Rayner]

As I said at the start of the debate, people have to be responsible—and, in fairness, I acknowledged that the Prime Minister at the start of this week also outlined that people have to be responsible. I say that across the whole House and genuinely mean it: we all have to be responsible. I know people feel very strongly at the moment about these issues, and rightly so, and I hope the hon. Gentleman sees from my contribution to this debate that I am taking that very seriously as well.

We rightly expect that our local government must surely stay by the principles I mentioned, but we must also make sure that our national Government do too. That is real leadership—of our communities, and of our whole country. Instead, I fear we have a Government unwilling to recognise what is needed from them at this moment on this Bill: careful, precise deliberation and to bring communities and the country with us.

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has taken the reckless path of forcing the Bill back to Parliament today—a Bill that fails on its own terms. His approach risks dividing our country, our communities and even his party. I urge him now not to divide the House and to accept the amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side and his own.

For our part, Labour stands ready—as we have at every single stage of the Bill—to work constructively with the Government and other parties to build consensus behind a workable, sensible solution. There is no doubt that the people of our country want us to speak with one voice. Labour stands ready and willing to work in good faith to achieve that goal. The question is, are the Government?

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I will bring in Brendan Clarke-Smith now for his question, and then you can share the answers between you.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Thank you for your input today. You mentioned that people may be subject to equalities claims with the way the law is at the moment. Do you not feel that having a clear policy on this, both nationally and in terms of foreign policy, can protect local authorities if they diverge from it? That is why this Bill makes the picture a lot clearer for local authorities and avoids that situation where they may put themselves under threat and in breach of equalities laws.

[The Chair]

I do not know who wants to take on the two questions. I will leave it to you.

Peter Frankental: Sorry, I could not hear the first question. Could you please repeat it?

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I suppose, for the sake of completeness, that I should say I too have been on a trip to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel. However, as with Wayne David, that was many years ago.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I have also been on a trip funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and I am also a friend of James Gurd.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I have been on a trip funded by Caabu, who are not giving evidence this morning, but I believe they are later on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The regulator might consider itself to be an exception to that rule.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Q Some have suggested that it is rather pointless to implement a ban if you have a toothless enforcement regime. Do you agree that it therefore needs to be sufficiently robust if we are to introduce this regime?

Councillor Deering: If I may say so, I thought that Councillor Jamieson’s response to the previous question was very good, because the question went to freedom of speech but Councillor Jamieson talked about judicial review, and in effect you are talking about enforcement through judicial review.

I substantially endorse what Councillor Jamieson just said. From the practical point of view of a councillor—forgive me: no doubt some of you in the room have this experience, but perhaps some of you do not—JRs may very well not be vexatious but my goodness me they give rise to a huge amount of work. They involve huge cost exposures and they are very, very demanding on a council’s capacity. If there is to be a JR backdrop to this, it needs to be put together in a thoughtful and careful way.

Subject to that, of course, if you are creating a regime that requires application, there does need to be some enforcement mechanism. Yes, I agree with that.

Councillor Jamieson: There does need to be an enforcement mechanism, which is the whole point of the Pensions Regulator. That should have sufficient teeth. It covers a whole range of issues—not just this but other things—and in general it works reasonably well.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I strongly support this legislation, and I want to thank all constituents who have been in touch with me to tell me their views on it. It is my honour and privilege to represent a constituency that is home to a substantial Jewish community.

As we have heard this evening, the BDS movement is deeply divisive. The founder of the group and many of its leadership figures do not recognise the right of Israel to exist. They have no commitment to a negotiated settlement and want to drive the two sides apart, not bring them together.

As has been pointed out, these local boycotts split communities here in Britain. Many Jewish people feel a deep sense of connection to Israel, so they could feel intimidated and victimised if their local council were to pursue a boycott. The spillover of anti-Israel to anti-Jewish attitudes and discrimination is illustrated by the supermarket that, in 2014, took kosher foods off the shelf after protesters gathered outside in support of a boycott of Israel.

Moreover, the BDS movement often seeks to justify its campaign using the allegation that Israel can be equated with apartheid South Africa. That is a pernicious slur. In falsely accusing Israel of racism, it singles out the world’s only distinctively Jewish state for unjustified and disproportionate attack. That falls squarely within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and we should always reject it. I am gravely concerned that BDS activity has sometimes legitimised and driven antisemitism, and I note that the Communities Secretary has stated that BDS has led to

“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”.

There is no justification for a boycott or sanctions against Israel. Cutting economic ties with Israel will do nothing to further the peace process, or to get negotiations restarted. Israel is our ally. It is the only real democracy in the middle east; the only country in the middle east where equality for women is fully protected; the only one where the rights of the LGBT community are respected; and the only one with a genuinely free press and a fiercely independent judiciary. We should be strengthening economic, cultural and academic links with Israel, not severing them.

Deeper engagement with Israel means that we as a country can play a stronger role in supporting peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. It also brings advantages for jobs and economic growth here in the UK. I welcome the 2030 road map for bilateral relations between our two countries, which was signed in March and will boost tech, trade and security ties. The phenomenal energy of Israel’s digital economy and its cutting-edge pharmaceutical sector are just two reasons why trade with Israel is an important source of prosperity for us in Britain. In 2017, the Health Minister Lord O’Shaughnessy estimated that every year some 100 million NHS prescription items in England are made by companies in Israel. If we listened to the BDS movement and adopted its approach, we would see major disruption of NHS procurement of the medication that so many of us need and, inevitably, that would lead to rising costs.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming today’s legislation. BDS activists who bully councils into adopting these measures are also bullying the UK’s advertising industry. For example, Stop Funding Hate and Ethical Consumer are pro-BDS groups that tell their supporters to follow the BDS national committee, a group with links to Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. Does she agree that today we can, certainly as a first step, set an example in tackling BDS within public bodies?

[Theresa Villiers]

Indeed. Today is our opportunity to take a stand against BDS and I encourage as many hon. Members as possible to do that.

As part of the largest ever deal between an Israeli and a UK company, Rolls-Royce is delivering engines for El Al Dreamliner aircraft, supporting many highly skilled jobs in Britain. That type of massive commercial opportunity would be a thing of the past if we let these BDS boycotts take hold and spread.

In conclusion, this is a timely Bill that I hope the House will back. I am deeply disappointed that Labour has said that it is voting against it today. The question is: do you support boycotts against Israel or don’t you? I am strongly opposed to boycotts of Israel, which is why I am voting for the Bill this evening. I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who have listened to the Jewish community on this vital issue and brought forward the Bill it asked for to ban council boycotts. Israel is our friend and ally and we should be trying to increase trade with Israel, not trying to ban it. There is no justification for local councils adopting their own international trade policy. These are rightly matters for our democratically elected Government in Westminster. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to support the Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

There is a wider point here, which is that devolution matters but it matters for a reason. It matters because decisions taken closer to people, driven by the people of the place they call home and for the benefit of those people, have the ability to transform lives. We need and deserve proper robust scrutiny arrangements and accountability in every part of the country, not just some, in order to ensure that.

I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members making accusations at our doorstep about unfounded allegations and naysaying about regeneration in the north-east. They are wrong and I suspect that they know it. The Labour Front-Bench team has not made allegations against Teesworks and the development corporation, and we will not do so before any investigation reports back. What we have asked for is honesty, transparency and clarity about what appears on the face of it to be an incredibly murky situation. It is the clear breakdown of local accountability that is sufficiently alarming that an investigation by the National Audit Office is required. We want to see this resolved. Conservative Members should want to see this resolved for the benefit of people on Teesside. The South Tees Mayor believes that is the case, as do three Select Committee Chairs, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—if he did not, no investigation at all would be forthcoming. Let me be clear that the Humble Address today is about ensuring that a proper, full and independent investigation can take place in terms sufficient to provide the public with confidence in the process and the outcome of the investigation. In hand picking a panel and terms of reference, the Secretary of State has done a disservice to the principle of independent scrutiny and to his commitment to devolution, which until today I believed to be sincere. He has made it harder for confidence and transparency to return.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for being so generous with her time. Some of the claims she makes are quite serious and in this House we always want to act in the spirit of transparency and openness, but with these very serious claims, I would ask: where is the evidence—what is the basis of this in the first place? Perhaps she could outline some of the evidence she is using as the basis for making these claims in the first place.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with his colleague, the Mayor in question, who has referred himself and asked for a National Audit Office investigation. I do not know why Members on the Government Benches think his judgment is so poor that he should not have done that, but we believe he is absolutely right to have done that and we stand firmly behind him in asking for a proper investigation.

Incredibly, even by the standards of this shambolic Government, the terms of reference and the names of the panel members for this inquiry were sent to me seven minutes before this debate began. That genuinely is no way to conduct government. I assume that is where the Secretary of State is right now: sitting behind his desk knocking out terms of reference on the back of a fag packet. Clearly, I have not had much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read them, but on first sight what he has sent me looks like a system-focused review, rather than an investigation into what has happened. Ministers have still failed to give us an explanation as to why the National Audit Office cannot conduct its own investigation, a body that has capacity, resources and expertise, and is widely respected across the political spectrum. Instead, we are having a bizarre argument about the remit of a respected organisation that is patently able to conduct the investigation required. Can the Minister not see why the public would rightly raise an eyebrow?

It is completely unacceptable for the Government to hide from proper scrutiny. I remember a time when the Secretary of State could not wait to get to his place in this House. Nowadays, we barely see him. Where is he today? There is no clear justification for not ordering a comprehensive independent investigation from the National Audit Office. It cannot be right that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been handed over to a company that is now 90% in private ownership, and it appears that the Department has handed over that money and then simply walked away. This is a matter that has profound implications for people on Teesside, who rightly expect this site, through which they contributed so much to our country over so many years, to continue to benefit them and their community for years to come.

There is much we do not know about what has happened—that is the reason we need an independent investigation—but here is what we do know. When the 140-year-old steel industry on Teesside collapsed in 2015, thousands of jobs were lost along with a key political, social and economic asset for the communities of the north-east of England. In 2017, the South Tees Development Corporation began to collate over 4,500 acres of industrial land, including the site of the former steelworks, off the back of a Conservative Government promising hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer funding for the project, something we had championed and welcomed. In the face of losing that key economic and social asset, it is absolutely right that all options were considered about how to build a wide programme of regeneration around the site and that the combined authority was given the autonomy to determine the strategy to regenerate the site. Even where we have strong disagreements about policy, strategy and direction, that point is not, and will never be, in dispute.

However, in May, an extensive report by the Financial Times detailed how the Government had spent hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to support a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake. The deal never went through a public tender process. There was no consultation. There was no announcement. It also reports that those developers have secured £45 million already in dividends, despite failing apparently to invest a single penny of their own money in the project. In return for their role in securing the site, the South Tees Development Corporation awarded companies owned by the developers a 50% stake in the joint venture that would operate the project—a share transfer that also took place without any public tender. The new operating company, eventually named Teesworks Ltd, controlled the entire 4,500-acre site and its assets, including 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal. It was also given the option to buy any parcel of land on the site at market rate.

The announcement that freeport status was being awarded led the South Tees Development Corporation to fundamentally change its business model, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws and published by Private Eye. Following that, in a complex two-stage process, the two developers ended up with a 90% stake in the project, also without ever going through public bidding. According to emails received again under freedom of information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Department with responsibility for the project in Government—one official only became aware of the deal via the media in January 2022 and expressed “concern” and “surprise”. The Financial Times reports that an official at the Department’s office in the north-east responded that he had received “verbal” assurance locally that the deal was value for money. Can the Minister see why such serious concerns have been raised on both sides of the House, including by respected Members such as the Chairs of the Select Committees?

It is at this point that we called for the National Audit Office to investigate this matter in its entirety, to restore confidence for investors and the public in what was an increasingly murky affair. Indeed, the former chief executive of the Audit Commission, a public body that examined local government entities before it was disbanded by the Conservative Government, says the evidence

“calls for a full and thorough investigation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as the situation now appears far remote from the business case originally agreed with Government”.

Voter Identification

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my near constituency neighbour for his question. No, it is absolutely not the case that we are discriminating against anybody. We want maximum participation in elections, and we want to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. I gently draw his attention to the Government research that found that younger people are more likely than the general population to hold a form of voter ID. His logic does not apply.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

As we have heard, constituency Labour party meetings regularly request voter ID. I therefore challenge Labour Members to put their money where their mouth is and waive those requirements, if they are so confident that voter ID is not needed. Will the Minister remind the House of this programme’s success in Northern Ireland not only in tackling fraud but in increasing voter confidence?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been voter ID in Northern Ireland for 20 years, and it has run successfully. There is absolutely no reason why that will not be the case in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Again, I urge the hon. Lady, who I know takes environmental issue seriously, to look at the inspector’s report in full. She should look, for example, at paragraph 21.127, where the inspector outlines that there will be

“some, but unquantifiable, likely reductions in GHG emissions from transportation”

as a result of domestic production. Looking at the report in full and in the round, she will see that all the environmental arguments, which she takes seriously, are rehearsed, considered and then an appropriate conclusion is made.

Entirely separate to the planning inspector’s report, I would welcome her and her and party’s contribution to the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we have put forward. I am sure that she will find in that a number of measures that will meet the concerns that she and others have expressed in order to safeguard our environment more effectively.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Bassetlaw has a proud mining history. Along with many of my constituents, I praise my right hon. Friend for the leadership and the pragmatism that he has shown on this issue. There has been concern about importing our coking coal from countries with lower environmental standards than ourselves. We need metallurgical coking coal for making steel, as has already been said, but now we can mine to our high environmental standards, and, of course, also cut out the need for transportation halfway across the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from having a negative effect on our own net zero ambitions, this decision actually reinforces them?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend will know how rare it is that I quote from the European Commission approvingly. However, in the inspector’s report he quotes from the European Commission and says that it recognises

“the indispensable role of coking coal during the steel industry’s transition to climate neutrality.”

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, expertise cited by the inspector all points to the wisdom of allowing this mine to go ahead.

Solar Farms and Battery Storage

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Gray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. We have car parks that are good places to put overhead solar farms, as they do in many other parts of the world. Every factory that is built should have solar panels on the roof. Massive areas in town centres should have solar panels attached. However, those solutions cost developers quite a lot more money, and they are not going to do that if they can just buy a nice greenfield site and stick the solar farm out there. It is much easier for them to do that. That is why the planning system has to constrain what they do, so that they are forced to come back into our town centres and use the kind of solutions he describes.

We ought to move on to the central question, which is about planning. Wiltshire Council is being particularly targeted at the moment because it is being a little too cautious. The council is very concerned that, if it turns applications down, unless it can demonstrate that the application absolutely did not fall within the current planning guidance, the inspector will overturn that decision at appeal, and the council will then be faced with substantial barristers’ costs.

Wiltshire Council is saying, perfectly reasonably, “We need to be guaranteed that we are within planning law when turning down these applications.” That is why the detailed definition of planning law and the NPPF is incredibly important in order to give some comfort to councils such as Wiltshire Council when they say, “This is going to be turned down. Here’s why.” The wording of the NPPF should therefore be clear. I have been saying to my council that, at the moment, it is clear. Paragraph 155a of the NPPF says that local plans should provide a

“strategy for energy…while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed…including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.”

The guidance says:

“It is for each local authority to determine a planning application to include the consideration of intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, as well as whether the best quality land is being used for agricultural purposes. Large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.”

There is not one inch of Wiltshire that is not undulating, so, if that were to be applied in detail, there would be no solar farms in the county of Wiltshire.

As has been said, guidance also states very clearly that solar farms should be focused on

“previously developed and non agricultural land…that is not of high environmental value”.

The guidance actually says that at the moment, leaving aside the upcoming review.

On 9 March, in this Chamber, the Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), confirmed that interpretation of the NPPF. He said:

“In 2021, the Government set up a national infrastructure planning reform programme,”

which will be reviewed

“later this year”.

We would be interested to hear when that happens; we want to know the outcome. He continued:

“As part of that, the Government are reviewing the national policy statements for energy.”

Importantly, speaking as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, he said:

“It seems to me that”

we need

“a clearer national policy statement…The draft revised national policy statement for renewables includes a new section on solar projects, providing clear and specific guidance to decision makers on the impact on, for example, local amenities, biodiversity, landscape, wildlife and land use…It requires developers to justify using any such land and to design their projects to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for impacts”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 127-8WH.]

on agricultural land.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The comments that we heard earlier from colleagues about the use of agricultural land is a particular concern in my constituency as we have a proposed large solar farm that is nationally significant infrastructure because of its size. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is it important for local communities to be at the heart of that decision-making and be consulted properly, so that they can ensure that these solar farms—which we are not opposed to in principle, but they must be in the right places—do not take away from things that we want to preserve?

[James Gray]

My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for his intervention. It must be done with local consent and enthusiasm. The notion that solar farms can be good for biodiversity is, of course, complete nonsense. No shepherd worth his salt would graze his sheep on a solar farm. The grass is low quality. I do not think there is one single solar farm in the west of England currently being grazed, and the notion that they could be is nonsensical. Equally, the notion that, somehow, wildflowers thrive on solar farms is simple nonsense; it is simply not true. There is not a single wildflower that I have ever seen on any of the solar farms that I have ever visited. Therefore, the notion, which the developers put forward, that solar farms are somehow biodiversity-friendly is absolute nonsense.

The heart of the problem is that Wiltshire Council, and probably many other councils too, interprets the nation policy framework very conservatively. For example, the NPPF seems to indicate that it thinks that grade 3a land should not have a solar farm on it, but that grade 3b land could do. It is not absolutely clear, but it seems to be moving in that direction. Anybody who knows anything about a farm will know that some of it will be grade 3a and some will be 3b; it is extremely hard to make out which is which. One field may be half 3a and half 3b. Therefore, what we should be saying is that all viable agricultural land should not be used for solar farms—full stop. Never mind grade 3a, 3b, 2 or 1: all agricultural land should be exempt, under planning law, from solar farms.

Equally, we ought to be making much more use of carve-outs for protected designations such as national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty. Most of my constituency is an AONB, and if AONBs were exempted, there would be no solar farms. We must take account of a landscape’s special characteristics, which we are not doing under the NPPF.

Councils also ought to be more ready to make the argument about the cumulative impact of solar farms. The NPPF seems to intimate that cumulative impact is allowable, but the planning inspector is unclear about that. We must be certain that the more solar farms there are in a particular place, the less likely it is that planning permission will be granted.

We must also develop arguments about food production as a legitimate economic consideration. Under the NPPF, if there is a legitimate economic consideration connected to a planning application, it will not go ahead. It is currently unclear whether food production is a legitimate economic consideration. Officers—and indeed, I think, officials in the Department—have said that it is quite hard to know whether or not agriculture could be classed as a legitimate economic consideration. I think that it definitely should be.

Let me give the Minister a list of things that I would like him to consider. He will not be able to answer them this afternoon, I am sure, but I have taken the opportunity of sending the list to the Department, so that he can consider it at his leisure if he wants to. I and—it seems—many of my colleagues in the Chamber this afternoon have a wish-list. There should be changes to national planning policy, allowing local authorities more scope to object to applications so that they can object on a much wider scale. Perhaps we should make the process similar to that for wind turbines. At the moment, it is much easier to turn down a wind turbine plant than a solar farm, but I think that solar farms and wind turbines should be treated in the same way in planning applications.

As I have said, there should be a prohibition on using grade 3 land, whether it is 3a or 3b, and we must not allow battery storage solutions to take land out of food production for use for solar. There should be much more of an imperative towards smaller installations on barns, factories, warehouse roofs and all the kinds of places that the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned a moment ago, instead of huge installations on greenfield sites and farmland.

An interesting point is that the prescribed limit on the distances involved must be shorter. We cannot have these solar farms 10 miles away from grid connection; the distance to grid connection must be shorter, so that we have solar farms where there is a grid connection. At the moment, partly by using battery storage solutions, developers are coming up with sites that are miles and miles away from the connection to the grid, which of course produces even further damage to the countryside.

Visibility is an important point. In my opinion, no solar farm should be generally visible within one mile of listed buildings or protected landscapes; I think the Minister would probably agree with that. That limit should also be extended to cover views, which planning law does not currently cover. Under planning law, people have no right to a view and a view cannot be considered under planning law. In the case of solar farms, a view is terribly important and therefore we should allow people to object to a solar farm because it damages their view. The views in the countryside are incredibly important. Such a change would demand a change to the NPPF, but only a very small one, and I think that allowing local people to object to a solar farm because it would destroy the view is perfectly legitimate.

In general, the point I am making is that at the moment local authorities are scared. They are scared that if they do not interpret the NPPF correctly—if they get one word wrong—the inspectors at appeal will, perfectly correctly, overturn their decision. What our local authorities need is absolute clarity. At a time like this—post-Ukraine—we value our agricultural land and we do not want to see our countryside being covered in solar farms and battery storage solutions. We think that producing food is important; indeed, food security is an incredibly important issue for the future.

We must provide local authorities with clarity of language in the revised NPPF, so that they can say straightforwardly, “No, you will not have that solar farm on this particular piece of agricultural land”, with the confidence that the inspector will agree with them rather than overturning their decision, which is what seems to be happening more or less automatically at the moment. We need to give local authorities that strength, that clarity and that power. If we do so, and if the developers, who are watching this debate today, know that they will not get permission for a development, they will not put in the application and will go somewhere else.

I just want that clarity. When the NPPF review comes out—I hope that will be shortly and certainly this year: the Minister may be able to update us on that soon—let us see some of these things written into it, to give local authorities that clarity and that strength when they come to turn down some of these ghastly applications.

Non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Daly]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but, in respect of Greater Manchester, I think she has answered her own question. If what she says is the case, what an indictment it is of the Labour councils in Greater Manchester that they have not even bothered applying for the Government funding that would underpin that long-term strategy. I have been a councillor for a long time and we have been asking them for that strategy, in order to take advantage. I could cite the billions of pounds that are available to support these strategies, but Labour councils in my area—[Interruption.] Heads are being shaken, but Labour councils in my area have made no effort to address this problem. I want to take this opportunity in this Chamber to encourage my local councils to be as proactive as the hon. Lady’s.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions housing supply and making sure we have a balance on that, as well as having affordable housing for people. Does he agree that the proposals in the recent White Paper on levelling up and looking at what more we can do with brownfield sites give local authorities more of an opportunity to explore that, think outside the box a little and provide the kind of homes he has mentioned?

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The desire and policy of this Government is to ensure that we have beautiful homes developed for the benefit of everyone in our country, and there is money behind this: a £12 billion boost for affordable homes, including social rented homes, to help those with physical or mental challenges; and £5.4 million of additional funding for a pilot scheme in key areas, helping us to understand the most effective interventions for future national policy. We are also introducing a higher minimum standard for supported accommodation. So the money and the desire are there, and the policy direction from central Government says that local authorities come to us—[Interruption.] I am answering the point that has just been made. We want to support councils on this. We want to provide the funding that is going to develop those brownfield sites in their boroughs, but what are the Government to do if local authorities do not even have that conversation with the Government? I am assuming that the councils have not had it with the Mayor of Greater Manchester. What is the point if they do not do that? I am known as a collegiate parliamentarian, and I am simply here to encourage my local authority in Bury to work with the Government, who want to work with it to ensure that we get the housing stock that is absolutely needed in our borough. I am proud to be part of a Government who have this strategy, want to support local accommodation and do not take the view of my local authority. This is a difference of opinion. My local authority, in terms of prioritising social need, social housing or social rented housing, believes in the policy document, and believes in building four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses on the green belt. That is its choice, as a local Labour authority. I believe, and support this Government’s intention, that we should be prioritising the development of brownfield sites, and ensuring that people have access to a home and that those support services are in place. In my local authority, over the 18 months of the pandemic, over £180 million was provided, on top of the normal grant funding, to support important services—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am pleased to contribute to such an important debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), is aware of my long-standing interest in this subject and I look forward to the further discussions he alluded to that will take place as the pilot reports are all completed and we think about the next steps, particularly in respect of the legislative framework.

We should be clear that we are talking about a situation unfolding throughout the country, as we all speak, in which rogue landlords, total cowboy operators and some with links to organised crime groups and established criminal enterprises, are getting their hands on taxpayers’ cash—our constituents’ money—and not using it for the purposes for which it was intended but simply lining their own pockets, and they are able to do so with absolute impunity. That situation is the subject matter of this debate: the fact that so many people can do such terrible abusive things, well within the rules, and totally get away with it. No criminal enterprise is going to get done for abusing taxpayers’ cash in this way, and that is a problem of the law.

I take issue with the Minister’s saying earlier in the debate that

“this is not a political issue”.

I agree with him in that I do not wish this to be a party political football with which we play knockabout in the Chamber, but this is a deeply political issue. It is full of political choices. We have talked a lot about local authorities, what local government can do or does not do and all this “he said, she said” about local government powers, but the fundamental problem and the failure in respect of the subject matter of this debate is one of the law itself, and only the Government have the power to change the law of this land. This is an arena of politics, but it is also the UK legislature. We are pushing the Government today not because of matters of party politics but because only they can act to prevent the abuses that we are all seeing unfold across our constituencies.

There is no point in my going to the chief constable of West Midlands police and saying, “I know that a drug dealer is basically setting up as a housing provider in my constituency, is going to get enhanced housing benefit payments, is going to line his own pockets and is probably going to abuse some of the poor, vulnerable constituents who end up in the property he manages,” because I know the chief constable can do nothing about it—not a single thing. That is the problem that I and all Members in this House with experience in this matter are desperate for the Government to fix. The problem is the law and only the Government can fix the law.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I fully take the hon. Lady’s point about rogue landlords, whom we absolutely must tackle. Does she agree that the way to do so is through making sure that higher minimum standards are in place? For example, the national statement of expectations is there. Does the hon. Lady agree that is the best route to make sure that standards are adhered to?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I accept that it is meant to be in the spirit of being helpful and adding to the debate, but the idea that criminal enterprises currently lining their pockets with our constituents’ money will be put off exploiting this business model because of a national statement of expectation is absolutely for the birds. I am sorry, but that will not work here. If it did, I would support it, because I want this problem fixed. I am desperate to see vulnerable people no longer being exploited and communities no longer being destroyed, but that measure will not cut it. These are proper operators and they have spotted a loophole in the law. They have calculated correctly that, instead of going further into the drugs business where they might have to do 20 years in prison, they can just get into the housing sector and no one will put them away for it—at all. In fact, they can do so in plain sight and nobody can do a thing about it. That is what I want the Government to take action on, because that is what I have seen in my own constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood. That is what my colleagues in Birmingham have seen in their constituencies, and some of them have truly horrific examples of abuse of vulnerable tenants.

We are seeing that problem all across the country. I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) for saying that this is national issue. It can become a little too easy for Members in this place to think that this is a problem for some cities—let us be honest, if we are to be party political about this, it is problem for some Labour-run cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, piecemeal action—a pilot here and a little bit of a change there—just creates a whack-a-mole system. A problem that starts in Birmingham will soon spread to Sandwell, to Stoke and then to Dudley, and to other places too, unless we have a national change in the law of our land that stops the problem dead for everybody. Then, a Member whose constituency is currently not afflicted by it would not have to worry about a proliferation of exempt accommodation taking place in their patch. If they do have it in their constituency already, they could at least see that there was an end in sight to this absolute abuse of the system, which, as Mr Deputy Speaker can tell, leaves most of us utterly impotent with rage because, unless the Government change the law, we can simply not fix this problem.

The first area of the law that requires change is the “more than minimal” test, which has been discussed today. The Minister made the point that the “more than minimal” requirement for the access to enhanced housing benefit regulations has come about as a matter of case law. He is, of course, right; that was done by a housing benefit tribunal. In this country, though, we do not distinguish between case law and Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments. The law is the law and if a judicial authority—a judge or a tribunal—comes to a clarification or a statement of the law that is against what the Government expect to happen, all that creates is a system that is open to abuse. It is the job of this legislature, this House of Commons, to put it right, and only the Government have the power to introduce that legislation to make it so. That rule—the “more than minimal” requirement—must be changed. It must be tightened up.

I do not buy the argument that, somehow, tightening up the access to enhanced housing benefit will somehow drive the good providers out of the sector. That is also for the birds. Those providers are already doing the things that are required in order to help vulnerable people turn their lives around. In the end, that is the thing in which we should all be interested. These are people who have escaped abusive relationships, who have come out of the prison system and are desperate to turn their lives around, and who have had addiction issues and need help to turn their lives around. They need good quality housing in order to do that. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) was right when he said that people should be sentenced to a house so that they can have stability—the stability that is required to help them turn their life around and become a citizen able to play their full part in society once more. That is not possible if the rogue operators get their hands on these people first. The good providers, who have a moral and a social mission when it comes to supported housing, will already be doing the right thing. I do not buy the idea that they will be pushed out of the system if the regulations for access to the cash in the first place are tightened up.

The Government and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in particular, rather than the Department for Work and Pensions, need to tighten up the broader regulatory framework. It should not be possible to be providing housing to some of the most vulnerable people in our country and to not even have to pass some sort of character test. The idea that the good providers who are operating will fail fit and proper persons tests is a joke. They will pass it because they have a social, moral mission and they can prove their track record in helping people to turn their lives around. If they do not pass it, they should not have access to vulnerable people in the first place. We know what happens when vulnerable people get into bad accommodation: they are ripe for further abuse, ripe for further grooming into drug activity, and ripe for further grooming into sexual exploitation. We should not allow any provider who cannot pass a fit and proper person’s test to get anywhere near some of these people because they will exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it. Frankly, I have no sympathy with anyone who we currently think of as a good provider but who ends up failing that test, because it proves they were not a good provider in the first place.

We also need more powers for local authorities—a point that was also raised earlier in the debate—to prevent the dumping of problem people from one part of a country to another. I accept that there are some classes of vulnerable individuals who need to break the link with their local area if they are going to turn their lives around, but that is not the case for the vast majority of people who have ended up in exempt supported accommodation.

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

This is an exciting day for me. I hope that the Committee will indulge me briefly while I refer back to my time as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment. Our report seeking better redress for homebuyers came just a year after I became an MP, working with the Government and hoping to enjoin them to create a new homes ombudsman—so, an exciting day.

The Government are committed to improving redress for new build homebuyers and improving the quality of new build homes. The clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that a new homes ombudsman is—finally, I might say—established in England. The clause should be read alongside clause 128, which sets out the conditions that must be met for the new homes ombudsman scheme.

There is no existing provision in legislation for purchasers of new build homes to complain to an ombudsman or redress scheme. The new homes ombudsman is intended to provide clearer and more comprehensive means of redress when problems arise. It will provide a place for new build homebuyers to go with complaints, and it will be able to undertake objective determinations based on its investigations. By creating a trusted independent redress system that is easily accessible, we can drive up performance and create a better housing market.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd? Have the Government considered extending the new homes ombudsman provisions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Eddie Hughes]

Regardless of where in the UK people live, it is important that they have access to the redress that we have set out in the Bill. Discussions are ongoing with the devolved nations, because housing is a devolved matter and so it is for them to determine. Those negotiations seem to be going well, and the feeling seems to be warm, so we may have to return to the matter at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill.

The arrangements are flexible to ensure that the best provider can establish and maintain the service. The scheme will be free for homebuyers and is intended to be funded by fees that are paid by the scheme’s members. However, should it be necessary, the clause provides the power to give financial assistance to a person for the establishment and maintenance of the scheme.