Westferry Printworks Development

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in those matters, and of course there may well have been a need to move at speed. It is not so much the speed I am concerned about as what happened during that timeframe.

Westferry is not the only example of that kind of behaviour by the Secretary of State. Similar allegations were reported yesterday in The Times about a case in Surrey. There are fresh allegations just today that when Westminster City Council’s planning officers twice recommended refusal of the Secretary of State’s plans to refurbish his London home, Conservative councillors called it in and overruled their own officials for him, but, to my knowledge, nothing about that relationship was disclosed in any register of interests.

Westferry is not a one-off. It is part of a pattern of behaviour, and the questions do not stop with the Secretary of State. They reach right into No. 10 Downing Street to the Prime Minister. In his final days as Mayor of London, the Prime Minister pushed through an earlier version of the same development. He was photographed at numerous convivial meetings with Mr Desmond, but No. 10 has refused to answer perfectly legitimate questions about whether and how often the Prime Minister has met Mr Desmond since he took office and whether they discussed the scheme. We need to know.

Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any other Ministers or their officials contacted him about the scheme before he took his unlawful decision? Did he disclose those contacts to his officials as he is required to do? Honesty is the best disinfectant for the very bad smell that hangs around this decision. Today, the credibility of the planning system and of this Secretary of State hangs in the balance. We cannot allow the planning system to be auctioned off at Conservative party fundraising dinners. There cannot be one rule for the Conservatives and their billionaire donors, and another rule for everyone else. So I say to the Secretary of State: it is time to come clean. Publish the documents. Let us see what he was really up to and let us see if we are staring into a new era of Tory sleaze.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we continue this debate any further, let me say that hon. Members should be very careful about accusations made in this House. I am not suggesting that anything has been said that should not have been said—I would have stopped anyone saying anything that is not suitable for saying. I am just issuing a warning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Stop shouting at the Minister. It is not how we do things here.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. She cannot be standing up in the Chamber. If the Secretary of State wants to give way, he will give way, and she must not heckle.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think they actually want to hear an explanation.

We only have to look to London, which faces some of the most acute housing pressures in the whole country, to see examples of what a lack of leadership and ambition means on the ground. Under the current Mayor of London, housing delivery has averaged just 37,000 a year, falling short of the existing London plan and well below the Mayor’s own assessment of housing need. The average price of a new build home in London has gone up by 12 times average earnings. The need for bold action was clear earlier this year, when I was left with no option but to directly intervene in the Mayor’s London plan. I do not apologise for doing that, for continuing to push for homes to be built in our capital city, as across the country, to meet our ambition as a Government to build 300,000 homes a year and to give young people, families and the most vulnerable people in our society the opportunity and security that previous generations enjoyed.

In that endeavour, it is right that we seek to make the most of existing sites, particularly in urban areas, with jobs, transport links and other amenities close by— brownfield sites such as the one we are discussing today. That is why we as a Government and I as Secretary of State have consistently taken pro-regeneration decisions, in order to turn those sites into homes and into employment opportunities. This development would have done that, but every time a do-nothing Labour council and a do-nothing Labour Mayor plays politics with homes and jobs it is ultimately people who miss out. They miss out on homes and they miss out on jobs. That matters, because as we come out of covid and we are trying to recover our economy, we should be thinking about the brickies and the plumbers, the van drivers, the labourers—the people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on these projects. We will get building. We will build ourselves out of this crisis and create the jobs that we need in this country.

I hope that the publication of these documents and my remarks today will go some way to putting an end to the innuendos and false accusations from the hon. Member for Croydon North. He might just address the big issues, upon which he has been conspicuously silent since taking office. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), used to raise rough sleeping, how we were responding to covid, and pressures on local council finances. He used to be constructive. He also used to probe and hold the Government to account. I cannot say the same for the hon. Member for Croydon North. He lives on his Twitter account, and he lives for smears and innuendos, not substance. He might speak to substance, not just party politics.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not; I am closing now.

This Government are determined to build the homes the country needs. We are determined to end rough sleeping, as the House will see today from the announcement of more than £100 million of funding to help local councils to provide better quality accommodation for the 15,000 rough sleepers that we have helped off the streets and protected from covid as a result of the pandemic. We will continue to help renters by reforming their rights and ensuring that they weather the economic storms to come as a result of the pandemic. We will promote beautiful, well-designed new communities, working with the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to radically change the way in which we consider our planning system.

We will speed up and reform the planning system to get those homes built, to ensure that infrastructure is laid at pace and that developers, housing associations, councils and everyone who cares about the future of this country and the homes that people deserve to live in can move forward with confidence and certainty. And we will invest in more affordable homes through the largest affordable homes programme this country has seen in a decade, building hundreds of thousands of new homes of all types and tenures in all parts of the country, so that families in Tower Hamlets, in London and elsewhere in this country can live with dignity and security and pursue their dreams and the opportunity, which many of us in the House enjoy, to have a high-quality home of their own. That is what the British people expect, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I intend to deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the spokesman for the SNP, I should tell the House that we will have to have a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, because, as is obvious in the Chamber, a great many people wish to speak and it might not be possible to fit in everyone who is on the speaking list. The time limit of course does not apply to Mr David Linden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

We talked about that yesterday. Yes, of course I said there was no evidence. I have not seen any evidence, and I repeated just now that I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, What I am saying is that perception and appearances in these matters are almost as important as the facts themselves.

Although the Secretary of State recognises that an informed and fair-minded person might come to the view that there was bias on his part in terms of the liability to the developer that was removed by his decision, did he at any point consider that an informed and fair-minded person might conclude that the events of the dinner could also lead to bias on his part? That seems crucial. If that is the case, when he reflects on the matter now, does he think that he might have done better had he decided not to take part in the decision-making process, once the developer had, quite wrongly—I repeat, the developer had, quite wrongly— tried to influence him at the dinner?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am now delighted to call, to make his maiden speech, Mr Mark Eastwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The attitude towards developers in Tower Hamlets could be summed up well using the term from a local football club that “No one likes us, we don’t care”. Thankfully, this Government care. The Secretary of State says that we need to be building more homes and I agree. Yes, they must be the right sort of development in keeping with the area and of a reasonable size, but they need building and failure to do that is to fail all those people who need a home.

Today’s approach is scandalous. It is a smokescreen to deflect from Labour’s poor record and the public will not fall for it. This is a storm in a teacup. It is a matter of public record that Mr Desmond gave £100,000 to the Labour party in 2002 and, at the time, the Prime Minister said that there was no reason why Labour should not accept it. Mr Desmond has also had dinner with the Mayor of London and Members from the Opposition Benches.

The Secretary of State was absolutely correct in his assertion that, while fairness and due process were followed at all stages, it is important that there must be no perception of bias, and he was right to follow the ministerial code on this matter. This is a transparent and open Government who are not afraid to make decisions and to justify them. This development would provide 1,500 new homes and 282 affordable homes. It will also provide jobs at a time when our economy is looking to bounce back from the coronavirus.

This Government can be proud of their record on housing. Indeed, the Prime Minister built more affordable homes in two years as Mayor than the current Mayor managed in his whole first term. In Wales, just 12—yes, 12—council houses were built in the whole of 2019. That may be enough to house the entire Liberal Democrat group in this House, but it is woeful for the people of Wales. The hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) presided over the forced evictions of long-standing residents from housing co-operatives in Lambeth, but if we are not going to build any houses, where are these people going to live?

Last year, we built 241,000 homes, the highest level for 30 years. That is 1.5 million since 2010. The affordable homes programme has also delivered nearly half a million homes since 2010. I commend the Housing Minister for his recent work on this. This Government are really building for Britain and we stand by our record. If local authorities will not do their duty, then we will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As an hon. Member from the Opposition Benches has withdrawn from the debate, we will go straight to Simon Jupp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Jupp]

I am not going to give way.

Ministers involved in the planning process take advice from officials with full disclosure. The insistence from Opposition Members that a ministerial decision was taken after a circumstantial meeting is without basis and totally absurd. Above all, is not today’s debate a missed opportunity for the Opposition to discuss policy, not politics, and delivery in the housing system—something they failed to do time and time again? Should not the planning system be reformed to ensure that planned development for new homes, such as in Tower Hamlets, is encouraged rather than discouraged and not fudged around like it is by Opposition Members? Should we not modernise the planning system to make it easier for councils and developers to deliver more of the homes we need?

I am acutely aware that the Opposition have tried to hold this debate in a narrow political vacuum, but they would be wise to consider their own record when in power—although it was quite a while ago—and the real concerns of the country at large. The country expects us in this House to debate how to tackle the greatest economic and fiscal challenges of our lifetime, including how we are getting the economy going again, how we are safely relaxing restrictions and how we are protecting lives and livelihoods. Yet here the Opposition are trying to weaponise planning decisions to score petty political points—nul points.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am not used to Members finishing early. I call Apsana Begum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes to try to allow as many people as possible to speak, but on four minutes, I call Nick Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

I will not give way.

The research also found that 2.5 million people are in hidden households that they cannot afford to move out of; 1.7 million people are living in unsuitable accommodation; 1.4 million people live in poor-quality housing; and 400,000 people are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Conservatives talk about the Labour party’s record, but we went on to fix poor-quality housing. Thousands of homes were upgraded under the Labour Government, and there was a low level of homelessness. We should be doing all we can to create better-quality, environmentally sustainable, affordable homes, given the dire situation.

It was more than reasonable for the planning inspector to say that 21% affordable housing in this scheme could be improved, as the Secretary of State agreed in his letter of approval. He admitted that the planning inspector was right:

“He agrees with the Inspector that, on the balance of the available evidence, it is likely that the scheme could provide more affordable housing and that 21% does not therefore represent the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing within the terms of”

the London plan. The letter goes on to say that

“for the purpose of his assessment of the proposal…the Secretary of State proceeds on the basis that the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be reasonably delivered is uncertain, but may be up to 35%”.

Yet he still thought it was appropriate to approve the application. To make matters worse, he rushed it through 24 hours before the increase in the community infrastructure levy. The decision meant the council was losing £40 million towards affordable homes, at a time when local authorities up and down the country are already struggling to do this.

I want to mention briefly, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. No, the hon. Lady may not. She has exceeded her time, I am afraid.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee.

Clause 1

Moratoriums in Great Britain

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, amendment 1, page 3, line 24, after “debts,”, insert—

“(da) a statement on behalf of any trade union made on behalf of employees affected by the proposed rescue of the company as a going concern,”

This amendment would include trade union views among the relevant documents which must accompany an application by the directors of the company to the court for a moratorium.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 2, page 4, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) For small businesses, in this Chapter, the initial period, in relation to a moratorium, means the period of 30 business days beginning with the business day after the day on which the moratorium comes into force.”

This amendment would extend the moratorium for small business from 20 days to 30 days for businesses facing insolvency.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 to 9 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 10, page 63, line 21, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period since 1 March 2020 during which a court in Great Britain is to assume that a person is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of the company or its creditors that has occurred, following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.

Clause 10 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 11, page 64, line 46, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period since 1 March 2020 during which a court in Northern Ireland is to assume that a person is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of the company or its creditors that has occurred, following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.

Clauses 11 to 12 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 13, page 69, line 12, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period since 1 March 2020 during which section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (to be inserted by clause 12 of this Bill) does not apply in Great Britain in relation to a contract for the supply of goods or services to a company where the company becomes subject to a relevant insolvency procedure, and the supplier is a small entity at the time the company becomes subject to the procedure.

Clauses 13 to 16 stand part.

Amendment 6, in clause 17, page 76, line 1, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period since 1 March 2020 during which Article 197B of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (to be inserted by clause 16 of this Bill) does not apply in Northern Ireland in relation to a contract for the supply of goods or services to a company where the company becomes subject to a relevant insolvency procedure, and the supplier is a small entity at the time the company becomes subject to the procedure.

Clauses 17 to 22 stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 23, page 79, line 20, leave out “section 18” and insert

“sections (Moratoriums in Great Britain: time-limited effect and renewal), (Moratoriums in Northern Ireland: time-limited effect and renewal), (Arrangements and reconstructions for companies in financial difficulty: time-limited effect and renewal), (Protection of supplies of goods and services: time-limited effect and renewal) and 18”

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make consequential, incidental or supplementary or transitional provision or savings (including modifying the effect of this Act or any other enactment, making different provision for different purposes and binding the Crown) in connection with NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9.

Clauses 23 to 47 stand part.

New clause 1—Ring-fence for unsecured creditors—

“(1) Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) The prescribed part of the company’s net property available for the satisfaction of unsecured debts shall not be less than 30 per cent.’”

This new clause inserts into section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986 a requirement that at least 30 per-cent of the proceeds from the sale of assets of businesses (after the deduction of the amounts owed to preferential creditors and the fees/expenses of the insolvency practitioners) in administration and liquidation shall be ring-fenced for payment to unsecured creditors.

New clause 3—Corporate governance: reforms—

“(1) Before 31 December 2020, the Secretary of State must—

(a) carry out a review of corporate governance;

(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report;

(c) publish the report; and

(d) arrange for copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular set out the Government’s proposals for—

(a) ensuring greater accountability of directors in group companies which sell failing subsidiaries;

(b) legislating to enhance powers for insolvency practitioners in relation to value extraction schemes (removal of value from a firm at the expense of its creditors when in financial distress);

(c) further raising standards by ensuring that directors of a company publish regular explanations to their shareholders as to what extent the company can afford to pay dividends alongside its financial commitments such as capital investments, workers’ rewards and pension schemes.”

This new clause paves the way for the introduction of measures proposed in the 2018 consultation on Insolvency and Corporate Governance.

New clause 4— Preference for pension scheme deficits in case of insolvency—

“(1) The Secretary of State, after consulting the Pensions Regulator, may make regulations amending this Act to ensure that contributions owed to pension schemes by a company are treated in the categories of preferential debts under the Insolvency Act 1986 as a priority secured creditor.

(2) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

The intention of this new clause is to make pension scheme deficits a ‘priority creditor’ in the event of insolvency and therefore due to be paid before unsecured creditors.

New clause 5—Trade union representation in restructuring process—

“(1) Before 31 December 2020, the Secretary of State must—

(a) carry out a review of the role of trade unions in company restructuring arrangements;

(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report;

(c) publish the report; and

(d) arrange for copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular set out the Government’s proposals for ensuring that trade unions representing employees affected by any proposed restructuring are—

(a) provided with all the information made available to the court,

(b) fully consulted by the directors of a company before any application for restructuring is made, and

(c) given the opportunity to contribute to decisions made by the court affecting their members.”

The intention of this new clause is to require mandatory discussion with trade union representatives once a company has entered the restructuring process.

New clause 6—Moratoriums in Great Britain: time-limited effect and renewal—

“(1) Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) ceases to have effect on 30 September 2020, subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has made regulations by statutory instrument providing that Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 should continue to have effect for a specified further period of no more than one year.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State must keep under review the operation of Part 1A of the Insolvency Act 1986 during the period for which it has effect.

(5) The Secretary of State must arrange for a report of a review under subsection (4) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 15 September 2020.”

This new clause would terminate the free-standing moratorium provision for Great Britain on 30 September 2020, subject to temporary renewal for up to one year.

New clause 7—Moratoriums in Northern Ireland: time-limited effect and renewal—

“(1) Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19)) (inserted by section 4 of this Act) ceases to have effect on 30 September 2020, subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has made regulations by statutory instrument providing that Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 should continue to have effect for a specified further period of no more than one year.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State must keep under review the operation of Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 during the period for which it has effect.

(5) The Secretary of State must arrange for a report of a review under subsection (4) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly no later than 15 September 2020.”

This new clause would terminate the free-standing moratorium provision fin Northern Ireland on 30 September 2020, subject to temporary renewal for up to one year.

New clause 8—Arrangements and reconstructions for companies in financial difficulty: time-limited effect and renewal—

“(1) Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (inserted by section 7 of this Act and Schedule 9 to this Act) ceases to have effect on 30 September 2020, subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has made regulations by statutory instrument providing that Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 should continue to have effect for a specified further period of no more than one year.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State must keep under review the operation of Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 during the period for which it has effect.

(5) The Secretary of State must arrange for a report of a review under subsection (4) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 15 September 2020.”

This new clause would terminate the new restructuring plan provisions on 30 September 2020, subject to temporary renewal for up to one year.

New clause 9—Protection of supplies of goods and services: time-limited effect and renewal—

“(1) Sections 233B and 233C of the Insolvency Act 1986 (inserted by section 12 of this Act) cease to have effect on 30 September 2020, subject to the condition in subsection (2).

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has made regulations by statutory instrument providing that sections 233B and 233C of the Insolvency Act 1986 should continue to have effect for a specified further period of no more than one year.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State must keep under review the operation of sections 233B and 233C of the Insolvency Act 1986 during the period for which they have effect.

(5) The Secretary of State must arrange for a report of a review under subsection (4) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 15 September 2020.”

This new clause would terminate the widening of Ipso facto (termination) clauses in supply contracts on 30 September 2020, subject to temporary renewal for up to one year.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 7, in schedule 4, page 122, line 38, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period after this Act comes into force during which the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for any temporary modifications to primary legislation in relation to moratoriums in Great Britain made by Part 2 of Schedule 4 to cease to have effect.

Government amendment 15.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment 16.

That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 8, in schedule 8, page 165, line 28, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period after this Act comes into force during which the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland may by regulations provide for any temporary modifications to primary legislation, or temporary Rules under Article 359 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, in relation to moratoriums in Northern Ireland in made by provision made by Part 2 of Schedule 8 to cease to have effect before the end of the relevant period.

Government amendment 17.

That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Government amendments 18 to 25.

That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 9, in schedule 10, page 203, line 15, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period in relation to which petitions for the winding up of a registered company may not be presented on or after 27 April 2020 on the statutory grounds specified in section 123(1)(a) or section 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (that a written demand has not been paid within 3 weeks) where the demand was served during that period.

Amendment 10, page 209, line 36, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period in relation to which petitions for the winding up of a registered company may not be presented on the grounds specified in Part 2 of Schedule 10 to this Bill (except where coronavirus had not had an effect on the company).

That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 11, in schedule 11, page 211, line 2, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period in relation to which petitions for the winding up of a registered company may not be presented on or after 27 April 2020 on the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (a) of Article 103(1)(a) or Article 104 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 Order (that a written demand has not been paid within 3 weeks) where the demand was served during that period.

Amendment 12, page 216, line 25, leave out “June” and insert “September”

This amendment would extend to 30 September 2020 the period in relation to which petitions for the winding up of a registered company in Northern Ireland may not be presented on the grounds specified in Part 2 of Schedule 11 to this Bill (except where coronavirus had not had an effect on the company).

That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 14, Title, line 3, after “make” insert “temporary”

This consequential amendment clarifies the temporary nature of the Bill’s provisions.

[Lucy Powell]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and I have said, we support the principle of the Bill and urge the Government to do more to support businesses, so that they can remain solvent and do not need to use these provisions. I hope the Minister will take the amendments in the constructive way they are meant. I will speak to each of them in turn and set out why we are seeking reassurances or think that the Government should consider changes to the Bill as it progresses. This has been a very truncated process, so we are relying on Ministers’ good will to take on board not just the comments I am about to make but those made on Second Reading, some of which were excellent suggestions.

I will take the self-explanatory amendments first. Amendments 3 to 12 inclusive would extend the time limits of the covid-19-specific provisions in the Bill. We welcome the retrospective nature of the provisions, but as we have discussed with the Minister, we suggest that the Government amend the Bill to extend the time limits for a number of the provisions, as they are insufficient given the prolonged nature of the crisis. Specifically, the suspension of the wrongful trading liability and statutory demands and winding-up petition measures should be extended to the same date as when the AGM and company account filing measures are valid, which is until 30 September.

Clearly, there was a sense from Government when the Bill was being drafted that on 30 June, most things would be back to business as usual. It is now clear that many sectors will not even be partially open for business again by that deadline—I am thinking particularly of hospitality, travel, tourism and the arts and their associated supply chains. They will not even have begun trading by the end of this month, let alone be getting back to any kind of solvency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can well understand his consternation. The behaviour of hon. Members when they are outside this building is, of course, not a matter for the Chair, but what is a matter for the Chair and for Mr Speaker is the safety of Members of this House, of people who work here, and of the many, many people who have continued to work here, through a sense of duty, during these last difficult weeks. It will be obvious to the Committee and to anyone watching our proceedings that Mr Speaker has gone to a great deal of effort to make sure that Members and staff working here are protected. Social distancing rules, as one can see by looking at the Benches and the way in which this entire building is now set out, have been very rigorously developed to make sure that everyone who works in this building, who is here to do their duty, is protected and will not put other people, including their constituents and their families, at any risk.

If any Member of this House is openly flouting the rules that we have asked every citizen of the United Kingdom to observe to keep the virus under control, and to protect the vulnerable and to protect the NHS, then that Member is putting not only himself or herself at risk, but everyone else at risk as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s observations will prove not to have been accurate. I am not suggesting that he would say that they were, but I cannot make any comment until I know the facts for certain. I hope that the facts are not as he has stated them, but if it transpires that the facts are as he has stated them, then it should be incumbent upon anyone coming into this building, if they know that they have put themselves at risk of contracting or passing on the virus, to act responsibly. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

We will resume the Committee stage. I was hoping I would have some sort of indication that someone might wish to speak. I call Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I was not expecting to be next, but I willingly take my place. I state my intention not to press my amendments, but I would just like to say a few words on why I tabled them.

We are in an emergency situation. The response to coronavirus has been first and foremost a public health response, but the necessary measures taken to contain the spread of this appalling virus, supported by all the hon. Members of my party, have now resulted in an economic crisis. While we look forward to a point where the public health emergency has passed at least sufficiently to allow some semblance of a normal life, the economic crisis is likely to have longer and more far-reaching effects. In my constituency, as in those of every parliamentary colleague I am sure, the most immediate impacts are being felt by our small businesses and the self-employed. If we are to plot the most effective path out of this crisis, it is to our small and growing businesses that we should allocate the most care and attention. Apart from the important role that they play in supporting our communities and providing jobs, the new businesses that will emerge from the current shutdown will be offering the innovative goods and services necessary for a new way of life that we may have to get used to. Our recovery—both physical and economic—depends on the next generation of entrepreneurs, and it should be the first priority of the Secretary of State to identify and support them.

The Liberal Democrats support the temporary measures in the Bill. They are sensible measures that should carry successful businesses through the current crisis until such time as they can thrive again on their own terms. We support them, however, only as temporary measures designed to respond to the specific challenges posed by the current crisis. We oppose the bundling into the legislation of permanent changes to our insolvency and corporate governance processes. Permanent changes should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny and debate. My amendment 14 sought to put all the proposed changes on a temporary footing, able to be renewed, but also allowing the proposed permanent measures to be reintroduced to the House at such time as we may be able to consider and debate them properly.

Introducing the proposals as temporary measures would also allow their effect to be properly analysed. Our particular concern is for the ipso facto clause, which can be triggered if an insolvency effectively ends a contract to supply. This will require key suppliers to continue to supply struggling companies, despite the risk that they may not get paid. This transfers the risk from the struggling company to the supplier, which, whether in an economic crisis or not, is unacceptable. In times when cash flow is limited, it is not sufficient protection for a supplier to get in the queue with other creditors in the event of one of its customers falling into administration. Suppliers should retain the right to choose to withdraw their services if they perceive that their resources will face a lower risk return elsewhere. To compel them to continue their supply would be unethical.

I am particularly concerned that such a change would have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses, especially those that only have the capacity to service a handful of clients, and would be unduly disadvantaged by being required to supply goods and services without the certainty of being paid. I accept that there is a balance to be struck between the needs of customers and suppliers, and that during these difficult times supply chains are critical and need to be supported, but we need to take time to consider the long-term risks of introducing such a change to our insolvency procedures, and the introduction of emergency legislation is not that time.

The acid test of any new legislation at this time should be whether its provisions stimulate and support economic activity. There will be, regrettably, some businesses that will not survive the shutdown. For the sake of those who lose their jobs and livelihoods, it is imperative that capital and investment can be quickly diverted towards those endeavours that can thrive and provide new employment and economic activity. The increase in the scope of exclusions to the ipso facto clause will have precisely the reverse effect, injecting precious working capital into companies that cannot create economic value from it. Now more than ever is not the time to restrict our small business activity in such a way. I urge the Government to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal that all the provisions of this Bill be time-limited and that we consider the permanent provisions more fully at a later date, when we would have greater insight into the impact of their introduction on our business environment.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is a poignant moment as I call the shadow Chancellor to make what might be his final speech from the Dispatch Box.

Horizon Settlement: Future Governance of Post Office Ltd

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious that we have just over an hour left for this debate, which is not long. I hope that we can manage without a time limit, and we will if everyone takes about five to six minutes. That does not mean seven to eight minutes.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 4, in page 1, line 12, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 34, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 37, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 2, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 6, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Clause 3 and 4 to 10 stand part.

That schedules 1 and 2 be the First and Second schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of prison deradicalisation programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) may enter any prison premises in order to scrutinise the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme before the end of the period of 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) The person appointed must make further reports at intervals of not more than three months to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(5) The person appointed under subsection (1) may include in any review or report under this section consideration of the adequacy of resources made available to the prison deradicalisation programme, including resources made available for the supervision of probation and rehabilitation work.

(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(7) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), such expenses and allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”

This new clause would require the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme.

New clause 3—Review—

(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 9 to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review, and

(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).

(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when this Act comes into force.”

[Sir William Cash]

I have already canvassed some parts of what I am about to say, but there is more to say, for a very sound reason. Parliament is full of opinions and Ministers are full of opinions. Two Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, no doubt debating the issue before the Committee, but their opinions are not the law, and nor are those of leading counsel, whether senior Treasury counsel or those involved in academic discussion. I say that really seriously. I have been practising the law since 1967 and I know a little about how the law is interpreted. We saw the Gina Miller case the other day. How many times were we told that there was absolutely no question but that the Government were right in their interpretation? I served as the shadow Attorney General and saw the whole of the Iraq and Peter Goldsmith exercise. We were told over and over again in the House this, that and the other about interpretation—“This is what will happen. This is the way it will go.” That is no way to make decisions on matters of this kind of critical importance.

There are occasions on which the question of interpretation may merely be about a modification of policy; this is actually about saving human life. I repeat that: saving human life. Where it is possible for the House to ensure that human life cannot be unreasonably and wilfully disposed of by people who are intent on murdering for no reason at all, we need to take seriously the question of whether or not we can exclude the courts —because this is Parliament, not the judiciary—from making wrong decisions when matters come before them.

I heard with interest the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the various cases he mentioned, and I have just heard the Minister refer to the Uttley case. There is also the Hogben case, which was of course in 1985, before the Human Rights Act 1998. Reference was also made to the del Río Prada case. As a matter of fact, the legislation does not depend on an interpretation of those individual cases by way of precedent, and that is not what we should be worried about; we should be thinking about the purpose and scope of the Bill and its objective, which is to do everything that we can to ensure that human life and public safety come first. I do not want this to become an argument about the interpretation of law, which is why I tabled amendment 3 to clause 1.

Homelessness

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the tone of his rhetoric, but it bears no relation to the performance of the Government’s policies over the past nine and a half years. He talks about homelessness as though it remained a problem, but it is an escalating problem. It is a problem that is running out of control on this Government’s watch. When he comes back to the Dispatch Box, will he not talk about homelessness as though what we are seeing is a continuation of a longstanding problem? What we are seeing under his Government is as a result of his policies. The situation is getting—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us make this clear from the start: we cannot have long interventions. If Members make long interventions at the beginning of the debate, those sitting here hoping to speak at the end will get only two minutes, and that is really not fair. We must have short interventions.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I said, the figures for the past year suggest we are seeing a reduction in street homelessness—a modest reduction, I admit, of 2%, but a reduction none the less. We will not find out the official figures for the most recent count taken in November until next month, but having been to a number of local authorities across the country in recent weeks and spoken to them it seems to me that we will see a further, more significant fall in rough sleeping when we receive those figures. I have not for one moment suggested that that is an end in itself. We need to go much further and much faster. In my remarks, I will set out exactly what this new Conservative Government intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will not be surprised to hear that we have already met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of Shelter and other important organisations, to discuss this issue. We want to ensure that the social housing White Paper does the job that is required, and we are working closely with organisations such as Grenfell United to learn the lessons of that tragedy. We are also working with organisations such as Shelter in connection with our Renters’ Rights Bill, which will bring an end to no-fault evictions and create other important initiatives, including a lifetime deposit which will help those on low incomes and others throughout society by making it easier and cheaper for tenants to move.

We have a clear plan—backed by substantial investment and a proactive approach, and widely welcomed—to tackle homelessness and end rough sleeping for good. As the Prime Minister has made clear, that is an absolute priority for him and for this new Government. We are encouraged by the progress that we have made on rough sleeping in the last two years, and through measures such as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, the Housing First pilots and the rough sleeping initiative we are seeing results, but we know that we have to go much further to give some of the most vulnerable people in our society the future they deserve. I believe we can do this; I believe we must do this; and, as a compassionate, one nation Conservative Government, we will not rest until we achieve it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, I should give notice that, as we have only two hours left for this debate and it is obvious that a great many Members wish to speak, we will start with a time limit of six minutes, but that will soon be reduced to considerably less. The time limit does not, of course, apply to Mr David Linden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have a formal limit of six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

That is a very fair point, but the Government are, of course, looking at it, and we await further details. None the less, it is a perfectly valid point. I was simply arguing that, ultimately, the best thing that can happen to those tenants in that position is for them to have choice—to have more supply. Here we have a sector with build to rent that can bring significant extra supply. When we talk about supply, the key thing is additionality, which is a terribly technical word. In other words, it really is additional stock that has come about as a result of an intervention in the planning or funding system, and that additional stock would not have happened without that intervention. It is an incredibly important point.

I also want to talk about regeneration. If we look at the NPPF, we will see that there is encouragement for that type of tenure, for build to rent, where there is large-scale urban regeneration. Something that concerns me about the current housing dialogue, particularly in some Labour-controlled London boroughs, is that, let us be honest, regeneration has become something of a dirty work. It is seen as enforced gentrification by some. Actually, there is a point in that. There have been urban regeneration schemes in some areas, particularly in London, where, arguably, some of the people who lived in the development before the regeneration lost out compared with what happened afterwards. It is difficult, because, in theory, the great thing with regeneration is that greater density brings more supply and improvement to the current stock for those who already live in the development. It is about regenerating and improving an area. That is something that has been supported by parties from across the divide, but we need to see much more of it and more joined-up support from Government for it. We can build on greenfield, on brownfield or on existing stock through regeneration. There is nothing else available unless we reclaim the sea through polderisation, and I do not think that that is about to happen any time soon.

If we do not have significant urban regeneration, we see disproportionate pressure on the countryside, and easy planning decisions of just building more and more on greenfield sites. Brownfield sites come under pressure when we need economic development—when we need land for industry and so on. Regeneration is the key, and that combination of large-scale build-to-rent developments in densely populated urban areas is one part—only one part—of delivering that increased supply so that there is less pressure on rents and, as wages increase, we can reduce the number of people becoming statutorily homeless at the end of an assured shorthold tenancy. There is no easy single answer, but those factors can form a joined-up, holistic, one-nation Conservative housing policy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am delighted to call Abena Oppong-Asare to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I give notice that, after the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, three minutes, because there is only one hour of debate left. It gives me great pleasure to call Mick Whitley to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have a time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Homelessness is the manifestation of a society that is not working. The soaring numbers of rough sleepers and people living in unstable accommodation should shame this Government, because it betrays a policy agenda that has utterly failed people. The housing crisis has made it difficult for anyone facing relationship breakdown to get a new home, and the crisis in social care has made it difficult for anyone with mental health problems to access services. People can wait months or even years to get help, by which point their health has deteriorated to such an extent that their problems compound and become even more difficult and costly to treat or they lose their jobs and become unable to pay their mortgage or rent.

While I am pleased that the number of people sleeping rough in Bedford has fallen thanks to a number of initiatives, including Bedford Borough Council’s “Assessment & Somewhere Safe to Stay” hub, the SMART Prebend Centre, the King’s Arms Project’s night centre, and the work of the Salvation Army and other charities, levels of homelessness continue to rise. From my constituency inbox, I know that the homelessness problem is not so much on the streets but hidden in temporary accommodation. More and more people and families are living in totally inadequate, unstable accommodation.

This month’s brilliant report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only five of the 200 two-bed homes in Bedford are affordable to rent on housing benefit. The rise in the allowance from April under the Government’s new proposals will mean that only two more homes would be affordable. The allowance in my area is set to rise by just £10, but the report found that local housing allowance would need to increase by £225 a month to allow people to afford the cheapest 30% of homes in Bedford. These barriers must be removed, and the stigma attached to homelessness that leads to hostile policies must end if we are to stop such practices. We require a long-term, common-sense strategy, a radical and progressive approach to social housing, and an end to piecemeal funding to give children, families, individuals what is surely a basic human right: a safe and decent place to live.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Fleur Anderson.

Valedictory Debate

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I will be the frank with the House: it will be a great wrench to leave this place after 27 years. You know what they say, Madam Deputy Speaker: folks are often kindest when they know you are on your way out, and there have been occasions in the past week since I announced my intention to step down when I have felt that I have been granted the privilege of attending my own funeral oration without the need to arrive in a hearse.

This afternoon, I wish to say a few brief words of thanks and to offer an expression of some hopes for the future of this place.

My chief thanks must go to my constituents in Aylesbury who have returned me as their Member of Parliament in seven successive general elections. I have to say that, when I was first selected and then elected, I was somewhat taken aback to read and research the tremendous history of my predecessors from John Hampden to Benjamin Disraeli, but prime among whom was John Wilkes, that great champion of press freedom. His first term in Parliament was as the Member for Aylesbury, but it was said of him by Edward Gibbon that he was a

“thorough profligate in principle as in practice … His life stained with every vice and his conversation full of blasphemy and bawdy.”

I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would always ensure that none of us here these days conspired to follow John Wilkes’ example in that respect.

Despite the stereotype that I think does exist in parts of the country about leafy Buckinghamshire and quaint market towns, Aylesbury is a very diverse community. The town itself is one of the fastest growing urban centres anywhere in the United Kingdom, and although I will not cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) on the subject HS2, I will say that with residential growth need to go road and rail infrastructure and infrastructure that actually serves the local residents rather than infra- structure that bypasses them entirely.

Alongside that vibrant, very diverse town—a town where in individual estates, such as Southcourt and Quarrendon, one finds in microcosm all the urban problems and challenges with which Members of the House who represent inner urban seats will be familiar—is one of the most glorious stretches of countryside of the Chilterns and the Vale of Aylesbury. There is the extra piquancy, as the Member for Aylesbury and, at different times, either representing or being very close to Chequers, of being able to pick up—usually within about a week of whichever Prime Minister has been visiting particular shops or beauty salons or hairdressers—exactly what the Head of the Government at any particular time has been doing at the weekend.

It is a constituency, which, like our country, has changed a lot in the past quarter of a century. That was somehow summed up for me by my final constituency engagement on Saturday evening. It took place in the deepest rural part of my constituency at Radnage village hall. The hall was packed for a fundraising dinner to aid Nepal, and was presided over and inspired by Navin Gurung, the Gurkha landlord of the pub in the next village of Stokenchurch. Somehow, what summed up the evening for me was the spectacle at one moment of a Nepali traditional dancer performing her dance in front of a table containing the familiar range of bottles for the forthcoming raffle, behind which was the millennium mosaic for the village of Radnage, depicting red kites flying over the Chilterns and the beech woodlands and horse riders and hikers crossing the fields. Somehow, that image spoke to me volumes about my constituency and about our country—a country that can be at ease with itself in its modern diversity, where it is possible for people to feel that they are citizens of somewhere, and that they are rooted in a particular place and a particular heritage, but are also open to embrace and to learn from the experience and the traditions of others who also make up our country.

As well as thanking my constituents, I want also to thank the staff of the House, as others have done. I learned, particularly as Leader of the House from 2017, how much we owe to all our staff. All of us as Members know of the service that is given to us by the Library staff, the Doorkeepers and Badge Messengers, the Clerks—the Clerks from whom I learned so much in particular about drafting and parliamentary tactics during my 11 years on the Opposition Front Bench—and the catering staff, particularly the staff of the Members’ Tea Room, who somehow always manage to remain calm and cheerful despite the pressure that we on these Green Benches often put them under.

My final point is about the future of this place. We speak often about restoration and renewal, and I think we need to look beyond just the restoration and renewal of the fabric and the services—important though I believe that to be—to the restoration and renewal of the culture of the House of Commons. For what is the purpose of this place? If it is anything, it is surely to provide the forum in which the passions, fierce controversies and conflicting opinions in our country are represented, reflected and resolved in debate and votes—both in the Chamber and in Committee.

I believe that the conventions that we seek to stick to here—the rules of unparliamentary language, the fact that we refer to each other by constituency rather than name, and even the rather murky understandings that govern the relationships between Government and Opposition usual channels—are all important in trying to provide a culture within which very fierce political disagreements can be expressed in a form that is civil and democratic, and actually shows to ourselves and to those we represent that we can and should resolve such differences democratically through debate, not out in the streets. And that involves respect between people of different parties.

I was told soon after I came here the old story of the new bright young thruster taking his place on the Benches beside an experienced elder colleague. The young man said, as the Opposition Benches filled up on the other side of the Chamber, “Ah, I see that the enemy is here in strength”, to which his senior colleague replied, “Young man, those are your political opponents; your enemies you will find on the Benches beside and behind you.”

I believe that the House of Commons at its best recognises that there can be the most serious and principled disagreement about both values and policies, but which does not see such political differences as tantamount to our opponent somehow being wicked or lacking in integrity. I think and hope that the next Parliament will make a deliberate effort to avoid the language of “traitors”, “betrayal”, “vermin” and “enemies of the people.” To overcome some of the ills that beset politics in this country at the moment will take more than an effort by Members of this House—there will be things to be done by editors and internet service providers as well. However, a start can and should be made here, and that needs to start with a recognition on all sides that restoring and renewing the reputation and standing of this place begins when Members on both sides—leaders and Members of all parties—manage to find a way again in which we can express vehemently our support for or opposition to the particular policies that we debate, while at the same time respecting the integrity and fundamental good motives of our opponents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid that we now have to have a time limit of eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my first and last point of order, may I seek your guidance? Is it in order for me to record my thanks to my constituents and volunteers in South Ribble, my friends and family, my wonderful teams here in Westminster and in Longton, the many fine civil servants I have served with in three Departments and the staff of the House? Is it also in order for me to wish a civil and good-tempered campaign to the many friends of all parties I have made in my four and a half years in Parliament, and to wish a happy retirement to those who, like me—I cannot believe I am 45 and retiring—are leaving this unique and most special of workplaces? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope it is in order for me to pay tribute to my beautiful boys. Their unstinting love and support have given me depths of courage I never knew I had. They mean the world to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

To answer the hon. Lady’s point of order, no, none of that was in order, but I am delighted to have been able to give her the opportunity to make the tributes she wanted to make. I am sure the House will appreciate that because she holds a ministerial position, she cannot take part in this debate. Perhaps that it is a part of our procedure we ought to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes. I am terribly sorry, but time just goes on.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank the House for the debate that we have had on this important Bill and recognise the frustrations attached to it because of the timetable, the pace and the lack of resolution on some extremely important issues, not least to do with the passage of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill 2019, which, I can confirm to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), did not have a carry-over motion in the House of Lords. I will direct the frustrations of the House about that to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the business managers. I also recognise the frustration, now I am better informed about the background, about the questions on the housing association issue that have clearly dragged on for a long time. That perhaps explains the line of questioning, but I am where I am, at the Dispatch Box today, and I think there is a genuine commitment. I am not aware of any serious impediments. I hope that that gives Members some reassurance.

We see this as a defensible, limited and sensible intervention at this time, and one that is in line with the approach taken since the collapse of the Executive in January 2017. We take very seriously our commitment to good governance in Northern Ireland and this Bill, vitally, does not preclude a new Executive, should they be formed within the financial year, from making budget adjustments if they see fit and amending legislation in the usual way at the end of the financial year. Crucially, we have heard that the impact of not passing this legislation would be Northern Ireland Departments being unable to access the full Northern Ireland block grant for 2019-20. Of course, that would have a very serious impact on the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. The absence of legislation to underpin departmental spending would quickly become a systemic risk that would be unacceptable to all sides of the House. I thank the House for its consideration of the Bill, despite all the frustrations attached to it.

This is my last appearance at the Dispatch Box after almost nine years as a Minister and almost five years before that as a shadow Minister. I am delighted that this Bill is making its passage so that we can ensure that Northern Ireland has the budget it deserves, and so that the public services that the people we serve and represent rely on can continue to be delivered in the best possible way under the most difficult, frustrating and trying circumstances. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is very sad that this is the Minister’s last time at the Dispatch Box and in the House, and it is very sad that so many distinguished parliamentarians will not speak again from these Benches. This House will be the poorer for their not being here. I thank the Minister for the way he has conducted his business today and throughout his career in this place.

British House Building Industry

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I think the hon. Gentleman has stolen the words of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who also does loads of work on self-build. It is an issue that small and medium-sized builders have been squeezed out, but unfortunately I do not have time to address that matter today.

Let me return to the matter of pay ratios. At Barratt, the pay ratio between median executive pay and median construction worker pay is a disappointing 113:1. At Taylor Wimpey, it is an awful 126:1. At Berkeley, it is a shocking 331:1. But at Persimmon, it is an absolutely deplorable 1,561:1. Jeff Fairburn, in his final year of employment as chief executive of Persimmon, received more than £38.9 million, yet his average member of staff earnt £37,118. That was for technical staff. We do not know what the company’s subcontracted electricians, roofers or other wet trades people might have received. How can that be fair?

The vast scale of inequality looks even worse in the light of UK housing prices. Assuming that the average UK house price is £230,630—I assure the House that it is not possible to buy anything in my constituency or in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for that price—and that the average UK construction worker saves 10% of their earnings to buy a house, it would take them 92 years to save up and 19 years just to save for the deposit alone. But the average FTSE 350 CEO could buy 28 houses outright in one year, 532 houses over 19 years—the years that the construction worker would be using to build a deposit—and 2,567 houses over the 92 years in which the construction worker would be saving up to afford their home. On no level can this be right or fair. It cannot be right for our society. It cannot be right for us as taxpayers. It is simply wrong. The system is broken. In the main, the market does not reward hard work, endeavour and meeting the housing need. In my view, it certainly should do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to Members that we have very little time left—not surprising in the current circumstances—and that lots of people want to speak. We will try to manage without a time limit. Let us see whether we can be courteous and consensual. If everyone takes around five minutes, we will get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We really do need to keep aiming for the limit of five minutes, because I am sure that people will want to hear what the Minister has to say. She has been asked many questions, and the answers must be heard, too.

Sanctuary Housing Group

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I rather enjoyed that contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). It is wonderful to see a passionate constituency Member of Parliament in full flow fighting for his constituents on the Floor of the House. We do not see that often enough in Parliament, and I congratulate him on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House with such force. He has a wonderful constituency, and I know he is proud of being in Essex. I just wonder whether he knows quite as much as many others know about his own constituency, so I thought I would increase his knowledge of it before I come on to deal with the debate.

My right hon. Friend may be aware, and all Members will want to know, that next week we will have County Flags Day, on which the Essex county flag will be flying proudly in Parliament Square at the moment of national unity when we see our new Prime Minister installed in No. 10. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, other county flags will also be available, if they are registered with the Flag Institute. There will be 51 in total, including the Union flag showing the awesome foursome that makes up our United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am glad that the Minister has clarified that point, but there was no need. As long as he mentioned the Essex county flag, he was doing very well.

[Jake Berry]

There are others available. The flag of Lancashire will, of course, be proudly flying, and the flag of Staffordshire as well. I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend knows the millennium clock in Rayleigh in his constituency, which was created in a competition for schoolchildren. One of the shields that appears on the clock was designed by no less a person than Sarah Morgan from my private office in the Department, who is currently sitting in the Box. She proudly tells us about it at every opportunity, and she has also said that one of her ambitions is to appear in Hansard. She has achieved that ambition today.

I will now move on to the content of my right hon. Friend’s debate. Importantly, he spoke about Sanctuary Housing and some of the things he said are a real cause for concern. He will understand that many of those contracts are private commercial matters between his local authority and the housing association, and that disputes should, in the first event, be resolved by the parties to those agreements. However, I was extremely concerned, as a Member of this House and a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to hear of that organisation’s dismissive attitude towards Members of Parliament who are doing their job by raising the concerns of their constituents. That is completely unacceptable, not just from Sanctuary but from every social housing provider. We are sent to the House to fight for our constituents, and my right hon. Friend is doing a wonderful job this evening. I call on all social landlords, in a positive way, to engage actively with their Members of Parliament, because it is often we who people come to talk to when things are going wrong, and if that route is closed down, Members of Parliament will not be able to do their job and the housing associations and social landlords will also not be able to do theirs.

Many of the points my right hon. Friend raised are matters of real concern, and I hope that Sanctuary will read the Hansard of this debate very carefully. Serious matters have been raised, and they should be dealt with at local level, but it is also a national issue and a matter of concern to us all that people should engage with Members of Parliament with courtesy and respect and that the issues we raise should be taken extremely seriously. If they are not, we are going to see real problems in social housing sector, and I hope that Sanctuary will listen to the comments I make on behalf of the Department today.

On the issues my right hon. Friend raised about the changes we are going to see, particularly with the regulators, his concern is I think shared by all. We have to find a way to put the tenant voice and the tenant experience absolutely at the heart of our social housing providers. He, I know, is aware that the Government have recently concluded a consultation on the Green Paper; in fact, it concluded in November. We were delighted as a Department, but slightly overwhelmed, by the number of responses we had. Many of those responses, particularly in a world post that appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower, were about how we as a Government can ensure that tenants’ voices are never lost when it comes to social housing. If we think about some of the consequences we saw on that night just over two years ago and about some of the missed opportunities to support the people of Grenfell Tower, I think we would agree that we should all take this extremely seriously. I look forward to the Government responding in detail both to the Green Paper and all the consultation responses, but I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that the tenant voice and the tenant experience will absolutely be at the heart of what we seek to achieve. That may well include changes to the role of the regulator, although I am not in a position this evening to give any further detail on that.

On a more positive note, I think we should take the opportunity of tonight’s debate to celebrate the work of social landlords and the housing sector more generally in building the homes that our constituents need. In his speech, my right hon. Friend talked about CHP, a local landlord with which he has had a good experience. That may not be universally shared, but it is an accolade that he says he has had no complaints about it. I think that shows how, where there is a great relationship between a council, a Member of Parliament, the tenants and a housing association, they can get things right.

The reason why we must celebrate the contribution of this sector is that we need to ensure and to focus on the fact that, by the mid-2020s, we will be delivering 300,000 homes a year. That is what our country needs, and what this Government are focused on. A good portion of those homes will be delivered by the social housing sector. I was delighted that the Prime Minister announced in September 2018 that we are going to make another £2 billion long-term funding pilot available for social landlords, starting in 2022, so they can get on with the job—to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments—of building homes, building communities and ensuring that our constituents, each and every one of them, have the opportunity to own their own home or have a home to call their own for which they pay an affordable rent. That is why I hope my right hon. Friend will join me, the specifics of Sanctuary aside, in celebrating the extraordinary contribution of social landlords more generally.

 

Question put and agreed to.