Miners and Mining Communities

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Characteristically, he was generous in his remarks and we appreciate it.

The last pit in my constituency, Easington colliery, closed in 1993, at a time when coal provided 50% of the UK’s electricity production. The decision at the time to close the British coal industry made our country dependent on imported coal, which until 2014 still accounted for 35% of energy generation. Coalfield communities have never fully recovered from de-industrialisation, as was proven in the new “State of the Coalfields 2024” report published by Sheffield Hallam University and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. In response to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the all-party group continues to take up causes and issues, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).

The Government continue to undermine the local economy, as evidenced in the excellent report, despite the regular trumpeting of levelling-up policies. In reality, the Conservative party chooses to invest levelling-up funding in places like Richmond and Cheltenham, rather than in places like Horden, in my constituency, which is in the top 1% of the most deprived areas in the country. Levelling up offered hope, but the ready-to-go Horden masterplan for regeneration was sidelined by a Conservative- led coalition from Durham County Council that favoured a single bid from Bishop Auckland, a constituency represented by a Conservative MP and a former Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Government have ignored and neglected our most deprived mining communities. Far from levelling up, Conservative Ministers have widened economic inequalities.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the levelling-up agenda the Government are pursuing is that it is mainly about capital investment? Although that investment is desperately needed in coalfield areas, Durham County Council has also lost £240 million from its grants, so the services that our constituents rely on have been devastated over the past 14 years.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to talk about the levelling-up bidding rounds. He and other hon. Members are well aware of the costs that were incurred by the county council—£1.2 million—in preparing bids that were not approved by the Government. We should have a means-based system; it should not be a beauty contest. Those communities, including the mining communities that are among the most deprived and urgently need regeneration, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is not happening. The evidence is quite clear and is laid out in the “State of the Coalfields” report. I know other hon. Members will mention that, so I will not dwell on that point.

Coalfield communities undoubtedly face numerous challenges: a lack of job opportunities, limited public investment, and higher council taxes. We could have a separate debate about the flawed council tax that penalises areas with relatively low property values, like mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Demand on social services is increased in coalfield communities because of an ageing population, many of whom have health legacies associated with working in pits and heavy industry, and generally have lower disposable incomes. Under these conditions, local economies struggle to thrive, lacking sufficient income to support vital small businesses and employment opportunities.

Low wealth coincides with low wages, making my region, the north-east, the lowest paid in the country. The Government could alleviate this, in part, by addressing past injustices and ensuring retirement security for mine- workers and their widows by reforming the mineworkers’ pension scheme, in line with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommendations published April 2021.

A legacy of mining is industrial disease, cutting lives short, including those of my own father and grandfather, who were both coalminers who passed away in their 50s, before reaching retirement age. My father died in the belief that his pit pension would provide security for my ageing mother, who happens to be celebrating her 88th birthday on Sunday. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We know that some pensioners receive as little as £10 a week from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Our miners created the wealth that made this country great, with the mineworkers’ pension scheme being among the UK’s largest pension funds. However, money that should be used to provide security in retirement is being siphoned off by the Treasury, taking half of all the pension fund’s surpluses.

In a parliamentary response to me in December, Ministers confirmed that they had taken £4.8 billion—billion not million, as was reported on the TV last night—out of the pension scheme. I note also that this figure has not been adjusted for inflation, so can the Minister tell me what the figure would be if it were adjusted for inflation? This money should be used to enhance pensions, not only providing extra security in retirement, but supporting our local economies, coalfield communities, employment and small businesses. The vast majority of retired miners and their widows continue to live in our coalfield communities.

The moral case for reform was strengthened by an unfulfilled promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister. I must remind Members—particularly those on the Conservative Benches—of the promise made by Boris Johnson when addressing miners in Mansfield and Ashfield during the 2019 general election campaign. Once again, he deceived voters, failing to fulfil his promise on the surplus sharing arrangements, which remain grossly unjust. The Government and the Minister have the opportunity to put that right today.

I commend my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who chaired the then Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee, which provided a blueprint for reform. The Select Committee report on the mine- workers’ pension scheme offers a road map for retaining the Crown guarantee, releasing the £1.2 billion in the investment reserve fund, returning the surplus, and protecting the taxpayer. With key Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Bristol North West, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North likely to hold crucial positions in a future Labour Government, I am confident that we can achieve pension justice for retired miners and their widows in our coalfield communities. I urge those on my own Front Bench to provide a clear commitment on this issue at the earliest opportunity.

Finally, I want to mention my constituent, Ray Patterson, who sadly passed away last year, aged just 62. He was one of the 11,291 people arrested and one of 9,000 sacked during the miners’ strike. His life was changed forever by his imprisonment on the ancient charge of unlawful assembly—a law that can trace its origins back to 1328. After the strike, the Government abolished unlawful assembly and introduced the Public Order Act 1986. Ray was innocent and at any other time he would not have been arrested, charged, or convicted.

I was 24 during the miners’ strike and saw how the Conservative Government tried to starve workers and their families into submission. I saw a police state on the streets of east Durham, intent on crushing miners fighting to protect their jobs and communities. The Government, courts, police and national media were part of a criminal conspiracy against working people in coalfield communities.

Ray, who was imprisoned and lost his job and pension, spent the rest of his life rebuilding. He left us too early, but his legacy will live on through his family. Ray maintained his innocence and fought to exonerate himself —I am sorry, Ray, that we could not deliver justice in your lifetime. We need the truth. While Scotland has taken steps with the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, England and Wales lag behind. The policing of the strike was notorious, marked by perjury and fabricated evidence, which were willingly accepted in the Government’s war on the miners.

Four decades later, it is imperative that Ministers commit to uncovering the truth about the strike, particularly events in relation to Orgreave. Many convictions from the strike are unsafe, warranting the erasure of criminal records, with only a few exceptions. From Orgreave to Hillsborough, a pattern of criminal misconduct in public office emerges, with South Yorkshire police at its centre.

Coalfield communities face numerous challenges in achieving justice and economic growth. We require a Government committed to levelling up, fair taxation, and justice. Despite slogans such as “big society”, “northern powerhouse”, and “levelling up”, the Conservative party has failed to deliver tangible interventions, particularly in the areas of greatest need, such as Horden, Easington, Peterlee, Murton, Blackhall, South Hetton, Haswell, Shotton, and Seaham. Residents in these communities have little hope of opportunity and change under the Conservative Government, so those on the Labour Front Bench must address this challenge by bringing investment, growth, and opportunity to these former mining communities, which are in need of a real alternative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my Durham colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing this afternoon’s important debate. For the last 23 years, I have had the privilege of representing North Durham, which was part of the once mighty Durham coalfield. Over those 23 years, I have seen many changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) spoke about the close-knit tradition of mining communities—not just in County Durham, but in his own area in Northumberland. Having grown up as the son of a miner, I am familiar with that close-knit tradition and the reliability of work that there was in such communities. However, I do not look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, because, to use a Hobbesian phrase, life was nasty, brutish and short for many people. There was nothing romantic about the death rates, which we just accepted as the price of coal, but many of the communities in my constituency—the town of Stanley, for example—were built on coal. The surrounding villages, such as Craghead, Sacriston and others, were all built because of coalmining. Their economic existence was coalmining. When that was finally taken away in 1985, when the last pits closed, the economic heart was ripped out of those communities overnight, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate.

Today, people would not recognise where the mining industry was based in North Durham unless they know the history of the area. They would certainly not know where the pit was in the South Yorkshire village where I grew up if they did not know the history of that village. That unseen legacy has cast a long shadow over many mining communities. I congratulate the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on its excellent report on the state of coalfield communities in 2020. It is a superb piece of work.

When I was first elected, the legacy of heavy industry, and certainly coalmining, was evident in my constituency. People who had worked underground their whole life suffered from not only debilitating lung disease, but other physical conditions related to heavy industry. Sadly, that generation is increasingly no longer with us.

After that social fabric was taken out of County Durham, we had unemployment, deprivation and poverty and, as happens in many communities, crime and drugs filled the gap. When I was first elected, I described North Durham as a rural constituency with urban problems and, as in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington and for Wansbeck, the legacy of drug abuse, for example, is still there today. This health inequality is now affecting a lost generation of younger people born in the 1980s, some now in their 40s, who never got into proper paid employment.

The report from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust speaks for itself. Life expectancy in coalfield communities is 82 for women, as opposed to 85 in the south-east of England, and 78 for men, as opposed to 81 in the south-east of England. The other thing that appals me—I have spoken about this before, and I feel very passionately about it—is that, in a wealthy country, life expectancy in County Durham has gone down over the last 10 years, which is an absolute disgrace. The report also outlines that, in 2021, the proportion of the population reporting bad or very bad health was 7.1% in former coalfield areas, compared with 4.2% in the south-east of England and 4.3% in London.

We have a legacy of ill health. Health professionals in County Durham tell me that the age at which people access intensive healthcare is now in their mid-to-late 50s. That puts extra pressure on our health services, which is not reflected in the funding. In addition, my constituency is now in the commuter belt for Tyneside and other areas, which is very difficult for people in many outlying communities unless they have access to a car. Young people do not have aspiration, which is difficult to raise, to get into good, well-paid employment. Warehousing and other low-skilled or semi-skilled work are no replacement for the high-quality jobs that we used to have in the coalfields.

We have heard a lot of talk from the Government about levelling up. I have said it before and will say it again: levelling up is a complete con. It is not a serious measure to level up Britain. If it were, the communities highlighted by the report would be at the top of the list. It is all about capital projects and pork barrel politics, basically setting areas against one another. Councils have spent millions of pounds, certainly in County Durham’s case, submitting bids that were never going to succeed. The only successful bid from County Durham was in Bishop Auckland, which happened to have a Conservative Member of Parliament, getting half a bypass in the process.

Levelling up has not replaced the £240 million that the Government have taken out of Durham County Council’s core funding by shifting the tax base on to local council tax payers. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington spoke about the low council tax base in County Durham, where 60% of properties are in band A, which means that we cannot raise money.

Additionally, we need extra services for our growing elderly population and our growing number of looked-after children. Is there a relationship between the closure of Sure Start centres, which offered early intervention for families, and the number of looked-after children who are coming back into care? It does not take a genius to work out that the two are related, and the Government have slowly woken up to that fact and are now reintroducing children’s centres.

We also had access to European regional development funding. Again, it was promised that no region would lose out, but we have. That money automatically came to areas like the north-east, and it did some fantastic work. It did not fixate on capital projects, at which the local Member of Parliament or whoever wanted to be elected could open a plaque; it was about employment and training. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington on DurhamWorks, which has been very good at getting young people who are not in education, employment or training back into work.

Levelling up has been a complete con, and we need that investment if we are to make a real change to health, employment and training. The Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag when he stood for the leadership of the Tory party and boasted that he would take money away from areas like mine and redistribute it to leafier parts of the south-east of England. That is exactly what has happened, and the idea that the Government can take the needs-based element out of this is absolutely disgraceful. The idea that they can give coalfield areas the odd £20 million here and there to replace the hundreds of millions of pounds that they have lost in local government funding, ERDF funding and other funding is just a con.

I look back to the last Labour Government with clear eyes. County Durham had five new schools, three new health centres, a new hospital and two new further education colleges. That is real investment in a community. I am also proud that, in government, we paid compensation to people with COPD, which should have been done many years earlier. It took a Labour Government to do that.

We need a radical change of approach, which no one can foresee at the fag end of this Parliament. It will only happen with the election of a Labour Government who will reprioritise the needs of individuals. Without that, the legacy of limited employment opportunities and ill health in our coalmining communities will continue, not just for those who worked in the industry but for generations to come. In a wealthy country like Britain, it is a national scandal that we should leave such communities to suffer in this way.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I just want to make one or two additional points and then I am happy to give way.

Personally, one of the moments where I realised that the system, which is hard to defend in any case, was fundamentally broken was in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy. We knew then that it was important that responsibility be taken for remediating buildings that were unsafe. We knew then that individuals and organisations had to take that responsibility on their own shoulders. We knew then that freeholders, if they were true to the spirit of the original legislation, would say, “Yes, we have a responsibility for this building and for all those within it. We have a responsibility to make sure this building is safe. Therefore, we should have a responsibility to pay for the remediation.”

But did we find freeholders queueing up to do that? Absolutely not. They were there ready to extract income at the highest possible rate whenever they could, through ground rents and service charges, but when they were called upon to discharge their responsibility to the leaseholders within those flats, they were absent. They ran away from their responsibilities. That is why I have limited to no patience now with the well-funded lobby groups that stand up for those freeholders and seek to ensure that they can continue to extract money from leaseholders. It seems to me that, at a critical point, the argument that is sometimes made on behalf of those people disappeared because of their negligence and their moral fault.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that traditionally it was flats that were leasehold, but increasingly it was houses, mainly fuelled by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. In my constituency, Persimmon Homes’s business model was structured around not only selling on the leaseholds, but the tactic of including areas of the estate that traditionally would have been passed over to local authorities as the responsibility of the leaseholders. Would he agree that the Government need to take some responsibility for the tsunami of money they threw at some of those developers, and for turning a blind eye to what they were doing in their business models?

[Michael Gove]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but he is conflating two things. Help to Buy can be criticised or defended on its own terms, and I believe it was the right intervention to ensure, in particular, that more first-time buyers could get on to the property market. However, he is also right that leasehold, which as he says was originally a tenure designed for flats, was then extended to houses, and in a way that is difficult to defend. It has expanded over recent years. That is why we are legislating now to ensure that we can stop it. There are two separate arguments that can be had there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Let me say at the outset that we do not intend to oppose the Bill today. Simply, it is better late than never. May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments at the start of the debate, because many people have contributed and campaigned on this issue over the years that it has been spoken about? Many have long needed this overdue Bill, and they need it to be improved. Leaseholders across the country have been waiting for years—six years, to be exact—to see the Government’s flagship Bill to end leasehold and to break free the millions of people trapped in what the Secretary of State himself describes as a feudal and absurd system of home ownership.

If this is the Secretary of State going in a hurry, I would hate to see his normal pace. It was back in 2017 that his fifth predecessor as Housing Secretary pledged action. He talked a good talk today, and he is theatrical. I love the passion—it is really there—and I love the “squeeze”. We want to see the squeeze, but frankly I have lost count of the number of times Ministers have promised to finally put Britain in line with other developed countries across the world that have all ended this medieval system. To be fair to the Secretary of State, none of them has said it is an assault on leasehold and a squeeze on income, so he is going a little bit further, but after all that time and all those promises and after that theatrical squeeze, we still have a Bill that does not actually abolish leasehold. I suppose that that is no surprise, as it comes alongside a Bill that pledges to ban section 21 no-fault evictions that does not ban no-fault evictions and a Bill to stop the small boats that does not stop the small boats.

It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to say that the Government plan to amend the Bill in the usual way, but is it too much to ask for the Government to include a clause that bans leasehold in a Bill whose stated purpose was to ban leasehold? Why make those promises, only to produce a Bill that does no such thing? In a word, it sounds like chaos. Even the day before it was published, the Department’s press release said that the Bill would ban developers from selling new houses under leasehold. Given the tiny proportion of leaseholds that are houses, rather than flats, it is hardly an ambitious pledge, but the Bill does not even introduce that ban.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with what I said to the Secretary of State? The Government could have stopped this, if they had not done the Help to Buy scheme, which fuelled this practice among large developers. They could have stopped it in its tracks, if they had stopped the finance to those companies. Does she also agree that expectations have been raised among a lot of the leaseholders who were put into the trap of their houses being leasehold? They thought they were going to get out of that trap, when actually they are not.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government have been in government for 13 years. We have had six years of these promises, and he is absolutely right that there is more than one way that the Government could have ensured that leaseholders were not treated in this way. The botched drafting of the Bill means we are still waiting to see a single clause that prohibits a single new leasehold property, whether it is a flat or a house.

It was on 30 January this year that the Secretary of State promised my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy),

“we will maintain our commitment to abolish the feudal system of leasehold. We absolutely will. We will bring forward legislation shortly.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]

In February, he said he aimed in the forthcoming King’s Speech

“to introduce legislation to fundamentally reform the system…to end this feudal form of tenure”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 3.]

In May, the then Housing Minister told this House that

“my Department are working flat out”—[Official Report, 23 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 214.]

on the legislation. If it has taken them this long with not a word to show for it, can they guarantee that they will put their amendments to the House by 30 January next year—a full 12 months after the Secretary of State’s promise at the Dispatch Box?

We have heard the Secretary of State say that it is perfectly normal to bring forward vast swathes of amendments in Committee—believe me, the Committee will be doing some considerable heavy lifting. Having shadowed him through the final stages of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I would say that perhaps he does think that making endless last-minute amendments to his own Bills is a normal way of legislating, but the anonymous sources close to the Secretary of State may have let the cat out of the bag about the real reason the Bill is so empty when they briefed the press last month. We know from them what he cannot admit today: the Prime Minister was blocking this Bill from the King’s Speech in the face of lobbying from vested interests opposing the reform. In the chaos of this Government, it was added only at the very last minute. We may have heard many warm words, and the Secretary of State was very theatrical about his ambition for reform, but he is stuck in the daily Tory doom loop in which vested interests always come before the national interest.

The truth is that the time wasting and backtracking all go back to the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to extend the lease on No. 10 Downing Street. The fact is that even if the Government belatedly fix their leasehold house loophole, flat owners will be left out of the picture, yet 70% of all leasehold properties are flats and there are over 600,000 more owner-occupied leasehold flats than houses in England. Having listened to the Secretary of State, those owners will still be wondering just when the Government will fulfil their pledge to them. As I am sure everyone in the House will agree, property law is, by nature, extremely complex, but we cannot and must not lose sight of the daily impact that these laws have on the lives of millions across our country, including over 5 million owners of leasehold properties in England and Wales. I am sure that most of us in the House know what that means in human terms for our constituents.

For most freehold homeowners, ownership means security and control, yet for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Too many leaseholders face constant struggles with punitive and ever rising ground rents—rent for a home that they actually own, in exchange for which the freeholder needs to do nothing at all. Leaseholders are locked into expensive agreements and face unjustified administration fees and extortionate charges. Conditions are imposed with little or no consultation. For leaseholders also affected by the building safety crisis, the situation is even worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Generally, I welcome what is in the Bill, as does the Select Committee, based on our 2019 inquiry. It is what is not in the Bill that is disappointing—that is the difference. Let me go back to our report, which built on the work of the APPG—I congratulate the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is now a shadow Minister, on their work. That report led to the work of the Competition and Markets Authority on mis-selling and the Law Commission report.

I want to go through some of the Select Committee’s recommendations and what the Government have followed through on, which we welcome. I also want to look at the matters omitted from the legislation, which could easily be added in Committee if the Government want to. Leasehold flats are more complicated, and they will probably not be added to the Bill in Committee. The Select Committee accepts the complications, particularly where properties are part commercial, part residential. However, our report was four years ago, which is a long time for the Secretary of State to work up a scheme to deal with leasehold flats, but we are not there. In the meantime, I hope that he will commit to the Committee’s recommendation for a programme of education and information for leaseholders, to ensure a better understanding of what commonhold is all about. There is a lack of understanding and information, and if we are to move to commonhold for new properties and encourage leaseholders in existing properties to convert, that programme is needed.

The legislation deals primarily with leasehold houses. We welcome the commitment to no new leasehold houses—or we will when the clauses are added to the Bill. We understand that that is for Committee. We welcome the commitment to removing onerous ground rents. The Select Committee looked in detail at the argument about the European convention on human rights.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not address issues associated with the growth in leasehold houses over the last few years? Earlier, I mentioned Persimmon, which has left a lot of residents with leases that include not only their own properties but common areas. Traditionally, when my hon. Friend and I were in local government, those would have been taken over by a local authority.

[Mr Betts]

There are real issues with that, which I was going to address later, but I will do so now. It is important to strengthen the right to manage, both for leaseholders and for freeholders in these estates who own the freehold of their house but not of the communal areas. I said earlier that in all property purchases where common areas remain in private ownership, there should be, at the point of purchase, a clear understanding of the agreement between the local authority and the developer about who is responsible for those common areas. In many circumstances it is simply opaque. Often, purchasers do not know who is responsible and are sent on a wild goose chase to find out once they have bought their property.

Returning to onerous ground rents, the Select Committee took counsel’s opinion, which was quite interesting, and made recommendations in paragraphs 114 to 116 of our report. There were two clear arguments why removing onerous ground rents from leases retrospectively was completely compatible with the European convention on human rights. The first, which most of us may not have thought about, is that controlling or changing rent is not confiscation of property but control of its use, so it does not conflict with the article on removing people’s property rights. Secondly, the convention includes a justification where the proposal has a wider beneficial impact on society, which can be offset against any impact on the property owner. Counsel’s opinion was that it was therefore perfectly justifiable under the European convention to remove onerous ground rents on existing properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for the history lesson but, regardless, we are determined to fix this now.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, because I need to make progress. Perhaps I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene a little later.

The key factor here is choice. At present, leaseholders do not have a choice, or they have a fake choice. The Bill will give them a genuine choice when it comes to how they manage and own their homes. However, while I warmly welcome these measures, we can and must go further. May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister to a few of my suggestions?

The measures in the Bill will clearly be of enormous benefit to individual leaseholders, making it easier and cheaper for them to buy freeholds or extend leases, but of course this is a very complicated area, and I know it will be difficult for many leaseholders to understand exactly how much they will benefit financially. My first suggestion, therefore, is the provision of an easy-to-use digital calculator enabling people to see what the Bill means for them.

Then there is the issue of commonhold fixes. I know that the focus here is on ensuring that leaseholders cannot be exploited and can take control of their homes, but there is a clear Conservative and free-market rationale for accepting the Law Commission’s recommendations on reforming commonhold so that more developers choose it, rather than leasehold, for new blocks of flats—not because they are forced to do so, but because it is the best option for their business model. Can the Government look at that again? All the work has already been done.

I strongly welcome the Government’s consultation on capping ground rents. As I said in an intervention earlier, the Secretary of State must look at who is making the representations, and bear in mind the old adage, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” when people oppose such caps. We know that ground rents are sheer exploitation. Let us call a spade a spade: this is money for nothing. Can the Minister assure me that there will be time to get a cap into the Bill once the consultation has closed?

We have all heard of too many sad cases involving a hard core of truly exploitative and dodgy freeholders—the bad apples—ripping off and exploiting leaseholders. We know that there are some freeholders who treat people properly, but the others know that going to court will be too much hassle for most people, and indeed that the odd tribunal defeat is just part of the cost of doing business. We must do something to ensure that there is a real cost to those unscrupulous companies and their directors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

The Father of the House makes a very good point. I would like to see co-operation between companies, rather than amalgamation. In my constituency, we often see two management companies sending two people to mow the grass on the same estate. Residents look out of their window and see the grass on one side of the estate being mowed by one company and the grass on the other side of the estate being mowed by a different company. Of course, they have to pay twice for that pleasure. If the companies co-operated, that situation would not arise.

Some 20% of the people attending my surgeries are there to complain about management companies. Even a constituent of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) came to my surgery—with two of my constituents, I hasten to add—to raise issues about management companies. She was very complimentary of the hon. Gentleman, by the way, but I put her straight. However, she was not very complimentary about the management company that she was suffering from. This problem happens in Greenwich, in Dartford and across the country, and we need this Bill to get to grips with it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that management fees slowly go up in some retirement villages and retirement complexes? Older people do not challenge them, and it ends up making their flats either unsellable or worth less than they paid.

[Gareth Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it highlights how management fees undermine the whole housing sector. We will end up in a situation where people do not want to buy nice homes because of the management companies that operate on these estates.

It undermines freehold, because people living on these estates have to go to the management company to get an information pack in order to sell their home. Of course, the information pack does not come free. On most estates in my constituency, people have to pay the management company £350 effectively to ask for permission to sell their house.

A lady contacted me and, apart from the cost, some of the information in her information pack was wrong. When she contacted the management company to ask some questions about the information it had provided, she was told that each question would be charged at £60 plus VAT, but this was the management company’s fault, not hers. That is just one example—I could give thousands—of just how horrifically some management companies behave. The Bill needs to deal with these organisations.

Levelling Up

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

Absolutely. There are few greater champions for Cornwall in this House than my hon. Friend, and I shall work with him to ensure that the business case is signed off as soon as possible and that we are able to see levelling up in Cornwall. I am delighted that I will be visiting Cornwall in the very near future to sign a devolution deal.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the Minister lives in some parallel universe, but he came to the Dispatch Box today to talk about the simplification of the process—a process that both he and the Secretary of State have been implementing—as though it is nothing to do with them.

County Durham had one successful bid in the first round, which happened to be in Bishop Auckland—surprise, surprise—the constituency of the former levelling-up Minister. In round 2, Durham County Council was asked to put in bids and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money doing so. Once the bids were in, it was told that they would not be considered because it had had a successful one in round 1. Will the Minister compensate Durham County Council for the money it has wasted, not through its own inefficiency but because he seems to chip, chop and change the rules when he likes?

[Jacob Young]

The right hon. Member talks about the processes that are owned by my Department. As I said, we are embarking on this ambitious funding simplification agenda purely on the basis of some of the points that he has raised. Local authorities, Members of this House and the Select Committee were concerned about the number of competitions that were involved in various Government funds. We are addressing that through our funding simplification doctrine.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Durham. I simply say to him that the international territorial level region for the Tees Valley in Durham has received eight projects across the rounds of the levelling-up fund. That equates to £128 per capita in the region, which is one of the highest amounts. I would ask him to welcome that.

Leasehold Reform

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

For most people, buying a house is the single largest investment that they make in their lives. Not only does it provide a home for them and their family, but it is also probably the biggest financial commitment that they have to meet each month. Anyone who has bought a new home knows how stressful and bewildering the process can be, particularly for first-time buyers. The mixture of stress and excitement of owning a new home means that many rely on advice from an array of advisors, including estate agents, lawyers, high-pressure salesmen and developers.

Often, when people are buying a house, they do not look at the issue of freehold and leasehold. They think that leasehold is cheaper, so they think that they will put that all off until the day they can afford to buy the lease. Many are not aware of the feudal nature of the property system in this country. Not only is the system outdated and unfair, but it has been made worse in recent years by the pure greed—it is greed, frankly—of certain house builders and property developers. The number of houses sold as leasehold has more than doubled between 1995 and 2015. The Minister mentioned that the figure has recently gone down. I wonder whether that is because of the scandal to which the Father of the House has just referred.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a number of very good points. In the light of what he has just said, does he agree that it is essential that anyone taking on an estate in land, whether it be a leasehold or freehold, receives the best possible legal advice before they sign on the dotted line, so that they know precisely what commitments they are taking on? Are not some of these problems related to the fact that that advice is not particularly good?

[Mr Jones]

I will cover that in more detail later, but it was a point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). The right hon. Gentleman is right: the one thing that needs outlawing is a developer or an estate agent being able to refer a person to a solicitor who is supposed to be “acting in their best interests”. That should not happen. The legal advice should be completely independent. There is an unhealthy relationship between those people. It is okay saying that we should blame the individual buying the property, but they are often first-time buyers who do not understand the process.

The issue of flats has already been raised. I accept that we deal with flats in a particular way, but there is a perfectly simple system that is not leasehold. What we have seen over the past few years is houses being sold under leasehold arrangements. That is because certain developers have seen it as a way of maximising their profits. They do it in two ways. The first is by passing the charges on to the owners, when traditionally they should have been paid by the developer—I will come on to examples of that in my own constituency in a minute. The second, which was referred to earlier, is the monetarisation of the actual leases, which are not only being sold to individual companies, but, in some case, being put into baskets of leases. It can be bewildering for a person to find out who owns their lease from year to year.

The other scandal, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), is around minor alterations. We are not talking about the wholesale redevelopment of a property, but, perhaps, a porch being moved or even a Sky dish being added, which have to be charged. It is no wonder that investors have got on to this. They know that the way that these leases have been constructed can mean a profitable business for them. They are not buying out of altruism; they are buying because they know that they can make money, and the people who are suffering are those who bought the leases.

I have already mentioned the issue of legal advice. Clearly, it is an issue that needs to be looked at. In many cases, if a person goes to some major housing developers, they will be told, “These are our recommended solicitors.” I am sorry, but that should be outlawed. The solicitor should be there to represent the buyer’s best interests. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) has just said, the solicitor should be there saying, “No, don’t sign that, because it is not in your best interests.”

I know that Members will cite many examples in this debate, but I wish to raise just three in my own constituency. Members will not be surprised to hear that they involve a notorious company, Persimmon Homes, which is terrible at dealing with customers. It has made more than £1 billion of profit every year for the past five years, mainly funded by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. The Government have done nothing to stop Persimmon’s sharp practices. Between 2012 and 2020, Persimmon built Roseberry Park in my constituency. Traditionally, when an estate is finished, the verges and common areas are passed over to the council, once they have been brought up to adoptable standards. But, lo and behold, on this site, they have not. Those areas are part of the lease, which means that the leaseholders have to take responsibility for the maintenance charges, which then go up and up. If buyers are asked whether they knew about this, they say, no, they did not, which gets back to the point about legal advice made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire—should they have signed this when they are taking on open-ended commitments. The site was finished in 2020, but the roads have still not been brought up to adoptable standards. It is anything to save money for Persimmon.

The other case involves Urpeth Grange. It is a small development site of 47 houses on a larger estate. Developers refused to pay the 15 years’ maintenance on an area of land and a play area and have passed it on to a management company, which is then owned by the leaseholders. Part of the planning permission was to have a play area. Well, if it is a play area, it should have been brought up to standard and passed on to the local authority, but, no, that did not happen. Even though everyone can use this play area, it is still the responsibility of the leaseholders. These sharp practices by Persimmon have been used to make more profit, and they are funded by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Competition and Markets Authority investigated the practices of Persimmon Homes and reached a settlement with the company. However, it seems to me, and I think he is saying the same, that there are still so many issues that are outstanding with house builders such as Persimmon Homes that either the CMA should go back in there and address those issues, or we should have some form of housing court where we can get those issues resolved, so that individual homeowners are not footing the bill in areas where they should not be.

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I agreed with the Select Committee’s recommendations on those homes.

Murray Park is another development, built in 2011 by Bowey Homes, which went into administration. In 2015, the freeholds were sold to a company called Adriatic Land 3 Ltd, which started charging ground rent. It came to light later that, due to a conveyancing error, Adriatic Land 3 had not bought 11 of the leases on the properties, and with Bowey Homes having gone bust, they were passed to the Duchy of Lancaster.

I would like the Minister’s help here, because the way the Duchy is dealing with the situation is frankly scandalous. Despite the error coming to light in 2011 and people wanting to buy the leases, they are being told that they have to pay £11,000 individually for valuations. Moreover, because there are only 80 years left on the leases, the marriage value applies. They are left unable to sell their property and, for some of them, their mortgage providers are questioning the situation.

The Duchy is being legalistic and obstructive in the way it wants to solve the problem. Those individuals found themselves in this position through no fault of their own, and when they got the valuation to try to get the cost of the leases, the comparisons used were in Leeds and York. I must say there is a big difference between York and Leeds, and Stanley in my constituency. If the Government could give any help in making representations to the Duchy, I would appreciate it.

As has been said, reform was promised. I do not know why the delays are ongoing, because this situation is blighting many people’s lives. They are hard-working, decent people who in many cases have saved and worked very hard to own their own house, who are proud of what they have achieved, but who have basically been left, in some cases, with assets they cannot sell or the fear that somehow the asset will never be there to be passed on to their loved ones.

I urge the Government to act quickly on leasehold reform. They cannot make the excuse that there is no Government time, because we have had very little business over the last few months. If it is not in the next King’s Speech, it will be one of the top priorities for a Labour Government to deliver in their first term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate on a topic has a real impact on our constituents. Leaseholders have been crying out for reform for years, and the Government make promises but seem unwilling to act.

It is simply wrong that the system denies people the right to decide the future of their own home. Being stuck with high service charges while faults and leaks fail to get fixed, and a lack of transparency over what leaseholders are actually paying for, is a familiar story. As mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), with the exception of England and Wales, every country in the world has repealed or reformed the archaic leasehold model. There is cross-party consensus in this place that the current system simply does not work, so why are this Government sitting on their hands while the people out there pay the price?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worse than that? The Government are not just sitting on their hands; they have raised expectations. Some of the comments from the Secretary of State in particular have led people to think that things are going to change quickly, when quite clearly they are not.

[Ashley Dalton]

I absolutely agree. It is an outrage that these promises give people hope, yet they turn into nothing. This is yet another example of the Government not matching the ambition of the British people.

I am sorry to say that the bad news just keeps on coming for leaseholders. As much as the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 made meaningful progress in all but abolishing ground rents for leaseholders of newly purchased new builds, reform for existing leaseholders has been kicked into the long grass. The UK housing market risks becoming a two-tier system for leasehold properties. There are 4.8 million existing leasehold properties and, unless reform comes quickly for those homeowners, new build leasehold properties will be seen by prospective buyers as more desirable since they are not subject to the same ground rent charges. That may well benefit developers, but leaves existing leaseholders stuck with unsellable homes and that has an impact on the entire market. An existing leaseholder unable to sell their property is unable to go and buy another, possibly freehold, property. The entire market is stagnating.

The Government keep promising that reform is just around the corner—if leaseholders just keep supporting the Government at another general election, they will really mean it this time and sort the problem out. The reality is that they have had 13 years to clean up this feudal model of home ownership, but they show no signs of doing it soon. We are talking about people’s lives. We cannot lose sight of the real consequences for people. As the Government continue to tease reform, some leaseholders who want to extend their leases dare not because they know there is no guarantee that the Government will follow through on their promise of further reform. Every day that the Government delay acting could cost leaseholders more when they do come to extend, pushing them closer to the cliff edge of marriage value having to be paid to extend a lease.

Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis: private renting costs are out of control; the disastrous Tory mini-Budget made it harder for millions to get a mortgage; and the leasehold model is clearly broken. The Government may have run out of ideas, but Labour would not only reform the broken leasehold system, but tackle the supply side of the housing crisis, building new homes and making them more attainable for potential buyers. While this Government make promises, Labour has a plan to deliver. Polling in recent months shows the public trust Labour more than the Tory party with the economy. With this Government’s failure to act on leaseholders and Labour’s plans to reform the system and support house building, the message is clear: Labour is also the party of home ownership.

There has been consensus across the House about the need to tackle the feudal leasehold system and tackle the exploitative practices that it enables, so what is the hold-up? Why are the Government all talk and no action? Will they please just get on with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Perhaps hon. Members would like to listen to the remarks I am about to make, because I am sure I will answer their questions.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), when she opened the debate, said that it will “take some time to phase out this archaic system.” She said—these were the words from the Opposition Front Bencher—that Labour recognises how complex this is. I think it is right to draw the House’s attention to the Labour party’s record when it was in office. I am holding a document from 1995 in which Labour promised to outlaw the feudal leasehold system, but it did nothing while it was in office. Labour has left it to the Conservative Government to fix these issues.

As hon. Members will know, in January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out his intention to bring the “outdated and feudal” leasehold system to an end. To deliver that intention, and in line with our manifesto commitments, we have embarked on a significant programme of reform to give people real control over their homes and their lives. [Interruption.] It is entirely wrong to say, as Members are chuntering from sedentary positions instead of actually listening to what is being said, that no action is being taken. Perhaps they would like to pay attention.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be old-fashioned, but I thought that when Ministers came to the Chamber to reply, they had to reply to the debate. The Minister has thanked Members from her own Benches who have spoken, but detailed questions were asked by Members from across the House. All we are getting is a speech written by civil servants, not a response to the debate, and she is quite clearly refusing to take any interventions from my hon. Friends.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I am not responsible for the Minister’s speech, but I am sure she will be referring to the contributions made by others during her winding-up speech—she is perhaps coming to that now.

I am also checking to make sure that the other Minister, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will be coming back to the Chamber. I am not sure that he gave apologies for not being here for the wind-ups, but we are just checking.

Local Government Finance (England)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I talked to James Jamieson this morning, as I do most weeks. One reason why he leads the LGA is that he is a brilliant Conservative council leader. If James were here, I think he would say he was not criticising but encouraging us, as any friend would, to do even better. It is striking that the welcome that the local government sector gave this year’s funding settlement was broader, deeper and more cordial than it has been for some years. Politics being politics, any sector will always, entirely understandably, want its champion to be someone who can ask for more.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I note that the Secretary of State does not want to talk about what has happened in the past, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) raised a point about need. It was no accident that the Government took the needs formula out of the local government settlement, meaning that areas such as mine and hers, which have high demand for social services—County Durham has over 900 looked-after children in care—have been the net losers. I am sorry, but it is not about pitting cities or areas against one another; it is just a matter of fact that certain areas have higher demands because of their demographics. That has to be taken into consideration, but the Secretary of State’s Government took the needs formula out during the coalition era.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a number of points and ensuring that I addressed them all would mean that I would be here well after the moment of interruption. We could discuss the difficult economic situation that the coalition Government inherited in 2010. We could discuss the way that we unringfenced funding to ensure that local authorities could respond to that. We could discuss the particular way in which some local authorities, irrespective of political colour, were able to use their resources more effectively. We could discuss the way in which interventions beyond direct local government funding under the coalition Government sought to address deprivation. It is striking, for example, that between 2010 and 2014 the Education Secretary—whoever he was—managed to introduce a pupil premium that saw millions flowing to the very poorest students, an initiative that had not been introduced under the previous Labour Government and that helped to close the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children.

The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is an brilliant campaigner for citizens in Stanley and North Durham. He makes his case effectively and he is right to remind us that when we look at local government finance it is important to bear in mind need and deprivation. That is what we are doing as we look overall at how we can review local government funding later on.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I can never resist the right hon. Gentleman, so I am happy to give way again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The Secretary of State just does not get it. Those were not options; they were political choices taken by the coalition Government. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and I are making is that on issues such as looked-after children and adult social care—he should remember that in County Durham life expectancy has gone down in the past 10 years—it is not optional for councils to intervene. They have a statutory obligation to do so and if that is not taken into account in the formula, councils in areas such as County Durham and Salford and Eccles will always be at a disadvantage because the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, of which he is a part, took that out of the funding formula.

[Michael Gove]

Again, the hon. Gentleman—my apologies, the right hon. Gentleman, and quite right too —makes three important points. On looked-after children, the whole position that we have had to take over the past 10 years on children in social care has been driven by a variety of factors that mean that we deal with the challenges of looked-after children and children at risk of abuse and neglect in a more intense fashion. That is why Josh MacAlister’s review of children in social care is so important and I hope that when it is published the right hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

On adult social care, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a greater degree of pressure, not just because we have an ageing population, although I note his important point about life expectancy in County Durham, but because we have more people moving into adulthood who, thanks to advances in medical care, also require social care. That is why in this settlement local authorities can make use of more than £1 billion of additional resource specifically for social care. On top of that funding, as was outlined in the presentation of the White Paper earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, £162 million in adult social care reform funding is also being allocated to help local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I enjoyed the Secretary of State’s debate with himself on what I was about to say; let me try to enlighten him. I must say, having treated us to a lecture about the causes of the global financial crash and the reasons for the deep and harsh cuts inflicted on our communities in the past 12 years of Conservative Government, he struck a different tone from that struck yesterday with northern leaders at the convention of the north. When he was challenged by the Liverpool Echo about whether the Government accepted that they—and he personally—played a role in the problems that he has been dispatched to solve, he said:

“You can never know with…hindsight whether”

those decisions “were judged just right”. I will leave it to Members to decide whether the Secretary of State is saying one thing to the House and another to the north of England. To misquote Eminem, “Will the real Secretary of State please stand up?”

The trouble is that the core spending power that the Secretary of State has trumpeted in press releases comes from our pockets. Bills have gone up and shopping costs more, so, as he should well know, people across the country are trying to keep their heads above water. Surely he can see the problem with the settlement that he has brought to the House today. For a decade, people have had money stripped out of their places and taken out of their pockets by the Government. The council tax rebate does not compensate us for that; nor does his settlement for councils. He has given us a partial refund on our money and asked us to be grateful.

Unsurprisingly, the Secretary of State was not asking people to be grateful for that last week when he was touring the country trying to sell his White Paper to a sceptical public. He did not say to people in Grimsby, Blackpool and Liverpool that this is the offer on the table from the Government: they can pay more to stand still or pay the same and get less. For all the gloss on this announcement, he is continuing to cut the central fund to councils in real terms, so, if places want to get the spending power that he promised, taxes will have to go up. That is a direct consequence of the decisions made by Ministers and the Tory Government.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is actually worse than that? For local authority funding, in the last 10 years—we continue to have it today—we have had a movement away from central Government funding and on to local council taxpayers, and areas such as County Durham, where 56% of properties are in band A, are severely limited in their ability to raise that revenue, whereas areas such as Surrey can raise a lot more. The net effect is a movement of resources away from areas such as County Durham to places such as Surrey.

[Lisa Nandy]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Worse than that, it is at a time when people can least afford to bear it. Walk into any community in any part of the country and we find people talking about the impact of runaway inflation under the Government and their inability to pay their gas and electricity bills and meet the costs of the weekly shop. How can the Secretary of State look them in the eye and tell them that he is forcing council tax rises on them of 3% in just a few months’ time, and that is on top of the increases in national insurance that his Government are so determined to bring in?

In 2019, the Secretary of State promised that people will keep more of what they earn and more will be invested in public services. That was an election promise, and it turns out that neither of those things is true. In the past seven years, the proportion of funding for local councils from central Government has nearly halved. The Government are doing less, so people are having to do more, and they have made people pay £10 billion more in council tax this decade.

Just yesterday, the Secretary of State was in Liverpool telling our northern leaders that they should

“judge us on our actions in the future.”

How about we judge him on his actions right now? How on earth did he get here—a Conservative politician, who once promised that hard-working people would keep more of what they earn under a Conservative Government, throwing new taxes on struggling families like confetti and treating the British public like a cash machine? This is the consequence of a high-tax, low-growth Government, and in every community people are paying the highest possible price for this Tory Government.

How can the Government have got their priorities so wrong? This week, BP announced £10 billion in profits, but while we said that oil and gas companies should pay more in tax so people could keep more of their own money—remember that phrase?—the Secretary of State backs the oil giants, and all this Government have done is offer families a dodgy loan to ease the pain now and to be paid back later. They have stripped £15 billion from our councils over the last decade, and in the last couple of weeks, with one stroke of a pen, they wrote off £13 billion of our money to fraudsters and dodgy contractors.

Where is the investment we were promised? Even after getting levelling-up funding, in 144 areas, people are £50 million worse off. North-east Lincolnshire, Dudley and Hyndburn have all lost under his deal. Blackpool, which the Secretary of State visited last week—and it is a town, by the way, not a city, if he wants to let the Prime Minister know—is down 1.92% in real-terms in funding to its council. Does he not understand what councils are dealing with? We are still in a pandemic, and these are the people who stepped up to run test and trace services when the Government failed. These are the heroic people—the council workers, the public health workers, the NHS workers—who rolled out the vaccine in record time.

Two days ago, the Government cut the public health grant in real terms, telling councils to pick up the slack. These are the same councils that have a half a billion pound funding shortfall for children with special educational needs. Remember the Sure Starts that the right hon. Gentleman closed—over 1,000 of them across the country—when he was the Education Secretary? Remember the time he lost a High Court battle for slashing funding for nursery children? On his watch, he set in train a process that saw spending on vulnerable children fall by half over this decade.

Actions have consequences. The Secretary of State said yesterday that he understood why we would be cynical about a Government Minister coming and promising us the earth. Well, we are not cynical; we are furious. We are still paying for what he did as Education Secretary, so when he rocks up and tells us that we can have less to do more, and talks about renaissance Florence and the rise and fall of the Roman empire, we have had enough. Our local leaders, meanwhile, are living in the real world—grappling with climate change and rising transport costs—and having to compensate for what the Government have taken from us and our communities, with all the added costs that come from inflation at a 30-year high.

The Secretary of State must know that by far the biggest factor driving up costs is the crippling cost of social care. We have just had an exchange about that in the House, because it affects every single community in this country. However, this is also at the heart of levelling up, because it is our towns that are ageing as good jobs have left and young people have had to get out to get on. These are the places where pressure on social care is most acute, but they are also the places where property prices are lower and the rise in council tax that he is promoting and forcing on people across this country produces the least. When his Department steps down, as it is doing today, these are the places least able to step up.

That is how we get a settlement in which parts of this country have fallen further and further behind while others have pulled further and further ahead. This is what he was tasked with fixing. That is before we even consider that, for six years now, the Government have been wasting our time, announcing and re-announcing intentions to review the system, yet all we have again for the fourth year in a row is a one-year settlement.

“Levelling up requires a focused long-term plan of action”.

Those are not my words, Mr Speaker, but those of the Secretary of State in his White Paper that he published last week.

We are getting sick and tired of the spin and the hype. Levelling up surely has to mean levelling with us and being honest about what this Government are doing. We are getting big promises and nothing to show for it. People are not fools, though; they can see through the shine, through the press releases, and see that life is getting harder and harder under this Conservative Government. Today should have been the day when the Secretary of State set that right, but instead he came with more of the hype, more of the slogans and more of the spin. It will not do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow both the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who is sitting beside me.

I give credit to our leader, Councillor Spencer Flower, and our chief executive, Matt Prosser. I also agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that we should thank all staff and officers, who have done a fantastic job over the pandemic in particular. I welcome the good news that they are all heading back to their offices now—the sooner the better, frankly.

I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I know he understands, being a true Conservative, that the best way to raise money is to lower taxes. The sooner we have some really bright blue Tory policies to do that, we will get more money for the Treasury, which can hopefully be better spent for local authorities and all the public services we need to spend money on. Otherwise, we will have to keep raising taxes—as Labour, of course, would do—and the pips will squeak for all of us, but particularly for the less well off, who are struggling, as we all well know.

Dorset, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has said, sets one of the highest council taxes in the country, and the unfair proportion of it lands on the Dorset council tax payers—a point that has already been made—with precept rises in various areas of council tax. I am grateful to him; we lobbied hard for the one-year settlement and we got more than we expected; we budgeted for between £4 million and £8 million, and we got £10.4 million.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Drax]

I am going to crack on, because I think there are many colleagues who want to speak; I know the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say later when he is called. We got £10.4 million, for which I am extremely grateful, although some has been ring-fenced and £3.1 million is for one year only.

Statistics are incredibly dull and can be misused, but I will just utter some to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 2021-22 Budget, to exemplify our particular issue. Our income is 85% from Dorset taxpayers, versus 67% on average for other unitary councils. The business retention rate is 14% for Dorset and 24% on average for other unitary councils. The revenue support grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, is zero—nul points.

That counters the notion that we have moved to a unitary council, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, we have led the way in the country—I know the Government want to go further with other authorities—and we cannot be seen to fail. I emphasise that and ask him to take it into account. So much has been done and so much money has been saved and cut that statutory services are under huge pressure. I know he is aware of that, but let me say it anyway.

The key issue, as we have heard, is that too much is one-off funding, when we need time to plan and far more funding for further ahead: three, four or five-year funding would be fantastic, so that we can plan and have certainty. The unfair distribution of the revenue support grant means that we get none—nil. The business retention rate, as I have said, is lower in Dorset than elsewhere, and the rural authority has additional costs that are not accounted for. That is where the funding formula needs to change.

We also have an accumulated debt of £70 million on the high-needs block for children with special educational needs. The Department for Education’s support is needed to eliminate that debt. For example, one child I know is costing the council £1.5 million to get the care that they need—and rightly so, but that care has to be provided from outside the county and that is costing Dorset Council vast sums of money.

Next year’s budget proposals include a 3% increase in council tax and an almost 1% increase for the social care precept. That means that for adult social care there is a 10% increase of £13 million to £141 million. For children’s services, there is a 4% increase of £2.7 million to £74.5 million—mainly for children in care and for disabled and SEN children. On climate and ecological emergency response, £10 million in capital investment has been put aside over the next five years. Finally, £750,000 will go to support new homes under the registered provider scheme.

Those are all extreme pressures facing a rural constituency such as mine, that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and those of other Dorset MPs. Again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is aware of that, and I am grateful because, since my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset spoke, I understand a meeting has kindly been organised by the Secretary of State’s staff. I look forward to discussing these issues, and more, with him in person, along with the council leader and chief executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Howarth]

I am pleased to hear that, so maybe he is not completely a Shakespearean tragedy. The Shakespeare North project, into which, to be fair, the Government have put a substantial amount of investment, is a huge success. I pay tribute to the Government for putting money into the Arts Council, to Knowsley Council for putting in a substantial amount, and to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and metro Mayor Steve Rotheram for also contributing. I should also mention the private donors, including Lady Anne Dodd—the widow of Ken Dodd—who put £400,000 into the project for a comedy space.

Knowsley Council has been the driving force behind Shakespeare North, on which it should be congratulated, and much else besides that I do not have time to go into. However, there are important projects still awaiting Government support that we had hoped would come from the levelling-up fund, such as the regeneration of Huyton town centre. Knowsley Council put forward a really good project for regenerating Huyton town centre, and I totally reject the assertion that such projects were selected on merit alone because, frankly, this project would have been far better than some that were funded. As I said yesterday, there is real concern that the levelling-up fund has so far been politically skewed in a way that means Knowsley, yet again, loses out.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s fixation on competition for such funding is inefficient and is clearly being used by the Government as a pork barrel? It puts a lot of pressure on councils such as Knowsley Council, which have already faced cuts, to put in the officer time to make such bids. Would it not be better to scrap the whole nonsense of bidding for this type of funding?

[Sir George Howarth]

My right hon. Friend makes a typically forceful point, and I agree with him.

Frankly, it is pretty grim to say to one local authority, “You have to be set against another authority for any project, and it won’t necessarily be based on the need of the community; rather, it will be based on a political choice that might not reflect that need.” In Knowsley’s case, the decision does not reflect the need.

As I said earlier, Knowsley is the third most deprived borough in England and it received nothing from the levelling-up fund—it was not 0.1%; it was nothing. That cannot possibly reflect a fair distribution of those resources. I made that point to the Minister during yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, and he did not respond. I hope he will now take this opportunity to do so. I suggest to him—again, he overlooked this yesterday—that he grants a meeting to me and Knowsley Council to discuss what can be done to get the funding we need through the levelling-up fund for the regeneration of Huyton town centre.

There are some small but encouraging signs that the Government might be beginning to recognise the gross unfairness that the last decade has meant for areas such as Knowsley. I give them a small amount of credit for that, but those of us who are more fair-minded recognise the importance of need. The Government are now talking about accepting need as an important part of funding mechanisms, but we do not yet have any evidence to support that assertion.

Finally—I notice you are looking at your watch, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I had better be quick—there was a time when I chaired the local authority finance committee and understood the distribution mechanism then, which was based on multiple regression analysis. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that, but I have to confess that I am not so well informed on the current mechanism. I am reminded of Palmerston being asked, many years after the event, to explain the Schleswig-Holstein affair, which was a border dispute between Denmark and Germany. He replied that only three people ever understood it: first, Prince Albert, who by that time was dead; secondly, Bismarck, who by that time had gone mad; and thirdly, Palmerston himself, and unfortunately he had forgotten.

When it comes to talking about local government distribution mechanisms and formulae, I feel I am very much in the Palmerston category, but I shall undertake to do better in future. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Wigan are now much more expert on the subject than I am. We welcome the fact that some small harbingers of change have been promised and will watch very carefully for them actually to come about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it will help the people of West Dorset or the rest of the UK in general if we leave London with a poor transport service. Just as I would like to see his community getting better support from the Secretary of State, I hope he might have the grace to recognise that Harrow and London in general also need to be properly supported as we come out of the pandemic.

[Mr Jones]

Is not the reason why Dorset has one of the highest levels of council tax that the Government who have been in power since 2010 have reduced the revenue support grant directly to that council and pushed it on to local Dorset taxpayers?

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has been challenging the Government in that regard—I think I heard a bit of gentle criticism, but perhaps he needs to make some more pointed remarks to the Secretary of State in private.

We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and Government Ministers are demanding further council tax rises to fund local councils, the police and transport for the elderly and the young in Harrow. That is yet another financial blow to hard-hit families. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the Front Bench rightly said at the outset, the Conservative party had not allowed so much money to be wasted on fraud, corruption and personal protective equipment that could not be used, there would be money to invest in more policing in local councils such as Dorset and, crucially, Harrow, and to invest in better services for local people in my borough and beyond.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

We have just heard it in a debate on the police grant, and we have heard it in this debate with the Secretary of State: the Government are treating 2019 like year zero. Anything that happened before then was nothing to do with them. He is increasingly trying to push the narrative that decisions around funding, local government, policing, fire or anything have somehow happened by accident. They have not: they have happened because of deliberate political decisions that, in some cases, the Secretary of State—who I think has been in the Government since 2010—has taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that the most savage cuts have been made to local government, with a 56.3% cut in the past decade. The Cameron-Osborne approach was to cut the central Government funding to councils from central taxation and push it on to local council tax payers, thereby deflecting the blame when local councillors and council officials had to take some very tough decisions. We have had the galling situation over the past 10 years in County Durham of Conservative councillors standing up and blaming the Labour council for raising the council tax, when they know the real reason is that the formula being used has shifted the way local government is funded in this country from central to local taxation.

In County Durham’s case, that means that the county council’s budget has been cut by £232 million a year—40% of the council’s budget. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) referred to Lord Pickles, and in the early days, we were told, “Don’t worry about this; it can all be sorted out if councils get more efficient”—that if they had fewer pot plants in council offices, as I think was said at one stage, or stopped serving tea and coffee at meetings, or sacked all their chief officers, somehow that would fill the gap. Well, that is absolute nonsense.

Another issue that affects counties like County Durham is that we now have an inbuilt mechanism that deliberately moves money from the poor areas with the highest need, to more affluent areas. That is no accident, but the result of a political choice. I take as an example County Durham, where 58% of our properties are in council tax band A, so if we raised the council tax by 1% we would raise £3.8 million. There are a couple of higher-band properties in my constituency—there is at least one castle, which may well be in the higher tax bracket—but there are very few higher band properties across County Durham. That should be compared that with Wokingham in Surrey, where only 2.8% of properties are in band A, so if it raises council tax by 1% it generates £8.9 million. Add to that the fact that we are not just moving that money to areas of lower need, but are ensuring that the poorest people in County Durham, or Knowsley or any other deprived community, pay the most, because we all know that council tax is a very aggressive form of taxation.

That is continuing. We again have a one-year settlement, and councils are now having to work out what they will do in coming years. The Policing Minister told us earlier that when it came to the fairer funding review on police funding, the train had left the station. He gave no indication of when it would arrive. Unless we tackle this issue, councils such as County Durham will always be at a disadvantage

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, there is a lot of press and PR. The Government work on the basis of slogans, gimmicks and spin, and the latest one is levelling up. I might be one of the few people who have actually read the entire levelling-up White Paper, including the annex.

[Mr Betts]

Sad.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I am, and the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) called me an anorak, so possibly I am both.

The White Paper’s analysis is not bad in that it raises the issue that we should be tackling, but it offers no solution to enable us to do that. I really enjoyed the undergraduate thesis on the Venetian city state and how Babylon was built, but again it did not reach any conclusions. Nevertheless, we have a Government who talk in terms of levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is right: you cannot have levelling up if you exclude the way in which local government is financed.

The other sad thing is that the Government’s approach has mainly been around capital projects. I think it is because the Prime Minister has a fixation—he has a fixation on quite a few things—on projects where you can see that something is being built. No doubt a Minister or local Conservative Member of Parliament can unveil a plaque and say, “This is what we have achieved.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said, if it was a fair process, fine.

I used to have a saying, when I was in local government, that any idiot can spend capital, which they can. The more difficult thing is to get the revenue streams into the future. Like my right hon. Friend, distantly I used to understand local government finance, but no doubt my knowledge is a bit out of date. What I do recognise is that we can spend as much capital on projects as we like, but what is needed is the revenue funding to go alongside it for the day-to-day needs of our local communities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley covered the bidding process very well, but the point is that, if it were a fair process, then fine, but it is not. Quite clearly, it is a pork barrel approach to the doling out of money to certain Conservative seats. Let me give an example in County Durham. Which constituency has either got new towns funding or levelling-up funding? The answer is Bishop Auckland.

[Michael Gove]

A great place.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not disagree with the Secretary of State. County Durham is a wonderful county. It has some great towns and, more importantly, great people. But why did Bishop Auckland get that money as opposed to any of the other towns in County Durham? Well, it has a Conservative Member of Parliament. I doubt that it will be getting much funding in the future, following the recent antics of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), with her criticism and plotting against the Prime Minister. She will be on the naughty step for a while, and will not get any future funding. The important thing is that this must be clear. I also question the bidding process. The problem with the process, as my right hon. Friend has said, is that it takes a lot of time and effort to take this through. Officer time is taken up, and councils are limited in the amount of officer time that they have. Then they have to go into some beauty parade, which is clearly rigged by the Government. The real issue in terms of levelling up is this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not want to jump in as a kneejerk reaction, but I have been considering what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has made a very serious criticism of a Member of this House. I just want to check whether he has given notice to the hon. Lady that he intended to criticise her on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am not aware how I criticised the hon. Lady, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you could illuminate and tell me how I did, I would be quite happy. I would not necessarily want to criticise her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman most certainly made reference to another Member. My interpretation was that he was criticising her, but the point is that he made specific reference to her. I just want to check that he gave her notice of his intention to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am sorry, but I do not know where in Standing Orders it says that you have to give notice. If a Member is criticising someone or raising a point, I agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when a Member is referring to a Member, which is what I did there—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman can try to argue with the Chair for as long as he wishes. I am concerned about keeping good order in this Chamber, and my interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said was that it was a serious criticism of the hon. Lady. Perhaps the most subtle thing for him to do is to undertake to tell her that he criticised her on the Floor of the House and apologise for not having given her notice of his intention to do so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not known for my subtlety. I am not sorry. I do not quite understand the point. The point I made was in reference to what has been in the newspapers. I was not criticising the hon. Lady. Frankly, if she is working against the Prime Minister, I would congratulate more than anything, not criticise her. I do not think that it was a criticism—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not need any more of this. I have said what I have said. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to argue with me. Will he please now continue with his speech?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I will, and I will take this up further, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I now come back to the main points? We are talking about some really serious things, and I am sorry that we have been diverted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, if levelling up means anything, it means building up those communities. It is not necessarily about bricks and mortar, but about trying to pull the fabric together.

County Durham has high levels of deprivation, with people more likely to need social care and intervention by the health service at a lower age—in their 50s—than in most places. There are huge demands on adult social care. One thing that makes me very angry is the fact that in the last 10 years, life expectancy in County Durham has actually been falling. The idea that there is a part of this wealthy country where our citizens’ life expectancy is falling is deeply disturbing and wrong.

This brings me to the issue of public health. I give full credit to Amanda Healy, the director of public health in County Durham, and her officers, who have worked tirelessly, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East that if we had given test and trace to them, they would have made a damn sight better job of it than the billions that were wasted nationally. We now have a situation where we have a cut in the public health grant. The last time the Government were consulting on the public health grant, County Durham was going to lose 40% of its funding. The problem is that if we really want to tackle the inequalities, we have to do it in terms of public health. It is no good trying to shy away from that.

We now have a situation whereby, as part of the levelling-up agenda, everything seems to be tied to changing the local government arrangements. County Durham has been offered a county deal. I do not understand why the Government are looking at changing the local government structures of an area—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are interrupting what I am saying. I can’t hear myself think.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will simply withdraw what he has just said.

[Mr Jones]

I will, but it is just irritating, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that it has irritated the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he has never irritated anyone himself. Irritation is something that is allowed in this Chamber; indeed, it is endemic.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad it is, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Turning to the devolution deal, one of the bare minimums that we have looked for is a replacement for the money that we would have received from the European Regional Development Fund. The Government gave a clear pledge that, once we left Europe, that money would be matched, but it is quite clear from looking at the Treasury Red Book that it will not be. That money is important in County Durham because it allows us to fund programmes such as DurhamWorks, which works with young people who want to get into work. It has been a tremendous success, but its funding ends in 2023 and there is no more after that, so it is important that at a bare minimum we get the equivalent of that funding. However, if we have to bid for it, the bidding process will take up the time and effort of our officers, and there is also the question of the transparency of the process.

I will turn now to the White Paper, which I have read. I actually like the Secretary of State; he is a thinker. It was certainly a loss when he was demoted from the post of Justice Secretary, because he had some great ideas around how to reform the justice sector. I plead with him to take some of the ideas in the White Paper, ensure that we have the funding review that has been put alongside it, and stop this nonsense of tying resources to a requirement for devolution or to messing and tinkering around with the governing structures locally. He must then ensure that that system tackles these issues and puts back what is needed in the formula, which is a needs-based assessment.

As I have said, County Durham has more than 900 children in care. That is not cheap and it has led, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, to adult social care and looked-after children gobbling up nearly 70% of the budget. That is not sustainable over the long term for doing the other things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, when he talked about ensuring that everything else that people expect—parks, services and basic communities—is there.

There is an opportunity here, and one thing we can say about the Secretary of State is that he is a thinker and he wants to drive change. I think he was out of the Chamber when I said that the main themes in the White Paper are correct. It is about not getting bogged down in the detail of governance, deals and devolution that does not actually mean devolution; it is just about trying to get the funding in place.

I have been a leader in local government and also a Minister, and I think that if the Secretary of State looks at some of the innovation taking place in local government, he will see that the quality of some of the officers in local government is fantastic—there are some great people there doing some great things. What we have to do is free up their time, give them credit when they are doing things and support those politicians who are actually there. Let us get away from the idea that mayors are the answer to everything or that these people do not have the responsibility. This issue affected our Government as much as it has affected his. The Treasury just does not trust these people, but frankly it should, because in local government we have some great innovators. We have people who will tackle the real issue, which, as I say, is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about making the real change that happens at a local level.

I wish the Secretary of State well in his ambitions. I hope he has a good fight with the Treasury, to ensure that he gets the resources so that if we are going to make real change at the local level, we will actually make a real difference. We have political differences in this place, but we do actually want what most people want, which is the best for their local community.

Draft Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 General Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It is a novelty that the Government are doing something to make it easier for people to vote, especially in the light of their Elections Bill, which is making it more difficult for most people to vote.

I have few common sense questions for the Minister. I agree that the draft regulations are partly about just a change in the terminology in the present regulations, which refer to things that no longer occur, such as shielding and clinically vulnerable people. He said that the draft regulations will apply to by-elections and subsequent elections after May, as the explanatory memorandum states. Am I right in assuming that if we agree the draft regulations today, council by-elections and other by-elections, such as the forthcoming Erdington by-election caused by the sad death of our colleague Jack Dromey, will be covered by these draft regulations, or will there be a gap until they come into force? I would like some clarification on that. I accept there will be very few instances, because those near to May will be wound into the May elections, but there will be some in February and March, so I would like to clarify whether they will be covered.

The previous regulations allowed anyone to have a proxy vote who wants one. Having read the regulations, there is currently no need to produce medical evidence. We are basically taking people’s word for it; when they contact the council, they say they have had a positive test or have been told to shield, or give some other reason. There is no way of checking that what people are saying is the truth. The Minister or any of us could just claim, although I am sure we would not, to want an emergency proxy because we have tested positive for covid. That would be perfectly sensible because it would be dangerous for that us to go to the poll, but there is no way of checking that that is true, is there? That is fine for most people, who will be honest about that and will take a responsible attitude to obtaining a proxy vote, but certain unscrupulous people may be encouraged to put in proxy vote applications and get the vote for their candidate up. I would like to know what monitoring will be done.

In the last year that we have had the regulations, has the Department collected data on how many applications have been made? Have there been any cases where there has been a sudden surge in the number of people coming forward in an election? I think it would be useful to know that. I know fraud is taken seriously by the Department. Could the Minister publish the data on how many times the emergency proxy vote has been used?

Another issue is that, under the regulations, an individual can not only apply for a proxy vote but change their proxy if their proxy becomes ill. Again, are the regulations as tight as they are in a normal proxy vote? I think there can be a proxy only if there are two people involved. Is that still the same under these regulations? I would not want a situation where an individual or a group of individuals could amass a number of proxy votes and act on behalf of electors in an election. That is just a point of clarification. I am not opposed to the regulations, which seem eminently sensible in these uncertain times.

The Minister also said that he would keep the measure under review. I am interested to know what the data was for last year and how many applications there were. At what stage will we reduce the need for this or say that we do not need it? Does he have information on how local councils are implementing the measure? We all know that councils and returning officers vary in terms of experience and their capacity, in some cases, to run elections. Have there been any problems so far with how returning officers have reacted?

The broader issue is how we will ensure that people know this measure is available. It is one thing to pass legislation here, but what will the Department do to ensure that the public in the May elections know that they can apply for this if they unfortunately find themselves in a situation where they have to self-isolate because of covid or, as these regulations state, any other reason.

[The Chair]

As this is a non-specifically Scottish measure, I will call the official Opposition first and then the Scottish National party. The Minister can then respond to the lot. I call shadow Minister Alex Norris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

However, I will stray in order to say that I understand the Government have taken consultation on remote voting for councils and are considering options, so who knows what might happen in the future? That is not necessarily within the remit of the SI or my personal ministerial remit.

I will consider some of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Durham.

[Mr Jones]

Right honourable.

[Eddie Hughes]

The right hon. Member—Hansard would have corrected my poor knowledge.

There will be no gap with regards to legislation; there will be continuity. The right hon. Member asked whether we would trust people or whether they would need to prove that they have covid. Given the circumstances, we will continue to trust them to do so—they do not need to prove that they have covid. Even if they were required to prove it, I am not all together sure how they would do so. With regards to how many times the measure has been used, we do not hold that information centrally. The Electoral Commission holds it, so the right hon. Member might be advised to direct his question to the commission.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but the Minister is the one who is introducing the legislation. I accept that the Electoral Commission might collate that information, but would it not be useful for the Department to know that information and publish it? The situation has gone on for a year now, so it would be easy to find out from councils. First, it would show whether the measures are needed. Secondly, it would show how effectively councils run the applications. Thirdly, do people actually know about the provision? That was one of the points I raised earlier.

[Eddie Hughes]

I will talk to the Department to find out whether we intend to collate the information and publish it, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know. With regard to his final point on whether people know about the draft regulations, I can only hope that they do through the multiple platforms available to people in this room and, more importantly, to the right hon. Gentleman. I will check his Facebook page, Twitter account, Instagram and TikTok to see whether he has shared with his constituents this vital change that we are making to legislation. No doubt, reels will be available.

[Mr Jones]

You will not be surprised, Dr Huq, to know that I am not on TikTok—

[Eddie Hughes]

Disappointed!

[Mr Jones]

Disappointingly, yes.

I am sorry, but I find this astounding. I have no problem with publicising the provision, but what steps has the Department taken to ensure that people know about it? What steps has the Department taken to inform councils and to assess what they do? If the Department says that it does not know how many times it has been used, I get the clear impression that the Minister, once we have passed the statutory instrument, will wash his hands of it. I am sorry but I do not think that that is right.

[Eddie Hughes]

I am slightly disappointed by the reinterpretation of what I said. I did not say that we are not interested or that we do not hold the information; I said that it is not our job to hold the information—

[Mr Jones]

Yes, it is!

[Eddie Hughes]

The Electoral Commission does that, and the right hon. Gentleman can contact the commission, should he need to. I am assured about our conversations with it, and that we have communicated to councils and will be communicating—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. Would it be useful if the Minister wrote to the right hon. Member for North Durham with that information?

[Eddie Hughes]

I certainly could write.

[Mr Jones]

I get sick and tired, frankly, of Ministers hiding behind quangos. I cannot get the Electoral Commission in here to cross-examine, but I can cross-examine the Minister on behalf of my constituents. I am sorry, but he is sidestepping the argument and saying that it is somehow the Electoral Commission’s fault. That is not the case; it is his responsibility. I accept that he might not know the answer now, but will he publish the data on how many times the measure has been used, and tell us what steps the Department has taken with local councils to publicise the regulations to ensure that they are enforced?

[Eddie Hughes]

We can only agree to disagree. Are we hiding behind a quango, or leaving a quango to do its job? We have just gone through a couple of years when people have perhaps expected the Government to do everything, but surely we should leave the Electoral Commission to do its job. The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that he can google the information, which is available on the Electoral Commission’s website. I think it was published in May 2021. The information is available.

Moving on to when we might review the legislation, that is clearly dependent on how we recover from covid. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said, we hope that we are moving away from covid, so that we will be able to review it in short order.

[Mr Jones]

If the Minister does not know how many times the regulation has been used and how effective it is, how will he do the evaluation to know when it is no longer needed? What will he base that on? Will he just stick his finger in the air and just say, “Well, today seems a good day to do it”?

[Eddie Hughes]

I feel that we are communicating via some dodgy broadband link and that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard my previous answers. I just told him that the information is available on the Electoral Commission’s website. It is available to the Government, so no finger in the air is required. We just have to press the link and the information is available. I am sorry if people have bad broadband connections this evening and are failing to communicate with us. I conclude my remarks and commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Levelling Up

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend’s new model institute is a perfect model of what was envisaged by the former Member of Parliament for Orpington when he was the higher education Minister and introduced reform to ensure that we improved access to higher education, but with a particular focus on skills and jobs. I look forward to working with him and the Education Secretary to spread this model through across the UK.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He announced a county devolution deal for County Durham, which has lost £224 million in Government grants since 2010. At the same time, his own county council’s spending powers have gone up. Will the devolution deal replace anywhere near the £22.4 million a year that County Durham has lost?

[Michael Gove]

I am looking forward to working with the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat Administration in Durham county—the first non-Labour Administration for many years, following on from the success of my hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) in winning their seats at the last general election. Sadly, the Labour Administration of Durham County Council were responsible for significant maladministration and the waste of resources. I am convinced that the new Administration will spend taxpayers’ money better.

Fire Safety: Retirement Communities

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased that I have been able to secure this debate tonight. The impact of fire on any property can be devastating, but the risks are increased when it comes to fires in retirement communities, due to the vulnerability and dependency of the residents who reside in them. While “retirement communities” can refer to a variety of types of housing, it is crucial that any building housing vulnerable and dependent residents has the very highest levels of fire protection arrangements in place.

Many residents who live in retirement communities may be unable to evacuate themselves or may have evacuation plans in place that move them from one part of a building to another part that is safer. There is therefore increased importance on ensuring that the ability of fire to spread in these buildings is contained. Despite that, much of the focus recently, following the tragedy at Grenfell, has been on the height of buildings and not necessarily the protection or lay-out of individual buildings.

I will talk about a specific retirement community in my North Durham constituency, but many of the issues I raise will affect other hon. and right hon. Members’ constituencies throughout the country. Cestrian Court was constructed and opened in 2008 by McCarthy & Stone, a developer and management company for retirement communities. The individual flats were sold to residents, and the lease was sold on. The building is currently managed by FirstPort, which also owns the lease. The issues relating to fire safety at Cestrian Court were first brought to my office in February when a resident passed me a copy of a compliance report stating that certain fire-stopping features were

“not considered to have met the guidance at the time of construction.”

Having looked at the report in more detail, I must say that I was alarmed at the litany of defects at Cestrian Court from the time of its construction. Most notably, a 1.5 metre part of a compartment wall between two flats was missing—in effect, a chunk of a corner of a cavity wall was missing—and cavity barriers on doors were not fire-stopped. Moreover, and as I will come to later, the attic space had numerous fire structures dislodged. That may have been as a result of residents moving structures in the loft or, as the report outlines, due to expansion and contraction of the roof and cavity barriers not being mechanically fixed at the time of construction. Finally, and most importantly, these defects did not meet building regulations at the time of construction: plasterboard joints were not sealed; plasterboard compartment walls were not extended to barge boarding areas; cables penetrated brick dwarf walls; roof voids were not fire-stopped; pipes penetrated cavity barriers; service penetration was not adequately fire-stopped; and communal venting discharged through the roof without fire dampening. All of those defects were serious and weakened the protections for Cestrian Court’s elderly residents. In the event of a fire, they would have had serious consequences.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member on initiating this important debate. Does he agree that the travesty of building regulations that have allowed unsafe building to take place without challenge increases the importance of the duty of care to local residents, which must be addressed not simply for his constituents but for those in every one of the 650 constituencies represented in the House, including my constituency of Strangford?

[Mr Jones]

I very much agree and will come to some of what the Government must do. Local fire boards and fire brigades will need extra enforcement powers.

I expected McCarthy & Stone, as the builder of the retirement community, to show an interest in rectifying its possible mistakes. I believed—foolishly—that it would be horrified at the risks that it might have inflicted on the residents through a litany of fire safety defects and that it would contact FirstPort, the new operator, to co-ordinate ways in which to rectify the situation. I was therefore disappointed when it simply said that the operation of the building had been passed to a new provider and that the warranty period on its construction work was up—it basically washed its hands of the situation.

It is unclear why the new operator, FirstPort, did not discover some of the structural building defects earlier as part of its due diligence when it took over Cestrian Court from McCarthy & Stone. It is also unclear why, given that Cestrian Court had five inspections during its construction, the National House Building Council failed to identify these issues.

On receiving the compliance report, I immediately contacted the chief fire officer at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, who did an audit of the building. Of most concern was the “stay put” policy in place for residents in the event of a fire, which effectively said, “In the event of a fire, do not worry. Stay in your flats. Your flats are fireproof.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Since construction 11 years ago, residents have been under the impression that “stay put” was the best policy to save them in the event of a fire. That was on the misguided assumption that the fire would be contained. With no fire-proof doors, gaps in cavity walls and loft spaces with missing or dislodged fire safety structures, that advice might have had fatal consequences. Residents were not protected, and we have been lucky that we have not had a national tragedy at this building.

The chief fire officer also found that the fire alarm system did not work, which again calls into question the “stay put” policy for residents in the event of a fire. He therefore escalated the advice from “stay put” to “full evacuation” in the event of a fire at the premises. Unsurprisingly, he also confirmed that the problems had to be treated with such urgency to mitigate the risk that the work would have to be done within three months. In the meantime, the fire risk was so bad that residents would have to pay for someone to stay on the premises 24 hours a day to alert them to possible fires, costing each two-bedroom flat £1,000. I want to formally thank Stuart Errington, our chief fire officer, and his team for the speedy way in which they dealt with this matter.

There have been cases throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, of fires in retirement communities. There is evidence to suggest that if those fires had taken place at different times of day, they could have had fatal consequences. One fire took place at the Beechmere retirement complex—a four-storey complex of 132 extra-care sheltered flats in Cheshire—in August 2019. The fire rapidly spread through the cavities in the walls and the roof space. The fire service was unable to prevent total loss of the flats, but it was able to prevent any deaths. However, there is evidence that if the fire had taken place during the night, the consequences would have been completely different.

In 2017, a fire took place at the Newgrange care home—a two-storey care home in Herefordshire—resulting in two fatalities. The fire service had to rescue 30 people. Finally, in June 2020 in Sunderland, a fire started in the roof of the Croft care home and quickly spread. Some 27 residents had to be evacuated—some from upper storeys. Again, if the fire had occurred at night, we would have had a large number of fatalities.

Turning back to Cestrian Court, I was told in April this year that full remedial work would cost residents £87,000—around £3,000 per resident. Let me say very clearly that it is plainly wrong that residents are having to pay for remedial work that was the responsibility of McCarthy & Stone, which built the properties in the first place.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the same issue at Guardian Court in my constituency, which is owned by Anchor Hanover. Just putting a new fire alarm system in these rented properties would cost £114,000. Along with the residents, I lobbied to reduce the cost and the labour costs to £98,500, but this is extortionate for people who have no additional means.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. These people are on fixed incomes and cannot just lay their hands on this type of money.

Let’s get this in perspective. Before its £647 million buy-out by private equity in February, McCarthy & Stone was listed on the FTSE 250. It handed out multimillion-pound bonuses in 2019. The chief executive officer earns £658,000, and the company has an annual turnover of £725 million—FirstPort has a turnover of £88 million. I have to say that £87,000 is small beer compared with the amounts being paid to the executives of McCarthy & Stone.

The remedial works at Cestrian Court have now been done, but the cost has fallen on the residents, and that cannot be right. It is also causing a huge amount of distress to those individuals, knowing that for the past 11 years they have been living in a building that could have been a tinderbox. I urge the National House Building Council and the two companies I have mentioned to put in place a scheme to compensate my constituents.

Interestingly, I have had one letter from McCarthy and Stone, but I think I have had five phone calls in the past few days, with it suddenly wondering why it is going to be raised in this debate. In the correspondence, McCarthy and Stone and the NHBC clearly have a dangerous misunderstanding of each other’s roles. I urge McCarthy and Stone and FirstPort to look, along with the NHBC, at who is responsible for this. Again, McCarthy and Stone’s attitude is, “It’s not our problem. It’s gone away”, but I think it is.

In conclusion, the Minister needs to consider new clause 1 to the Building Safety Bill, which calls on the Government to establish a review of construction industry payment practices. The current legislation contains no protections for residents such as those at Cestrian Court, given the height of the building. I understand well why the emphasis to date has been on the height of a building, but I urge the Minister to consider some of these buildings, and look at how we can better co-ordinate fire safety at a local level, and ensure that the inspection of new properties does not leave residents vulnerable.

I urge the Minister to take Cestrian Court as a case study that demonstrates the disjointed system for leasehold arrangements in this country, and the impact of that on fire safety. Residents of Cestrian Court have been fortunate that there was no fire, but one wonders what would have been done without their persistence in raising this issue and arguing that things should be done. Companies such as McCarthy and Stone portray the dream of a retirement for the elderly through glossy brochures and TV adverts, but all they have sold in my constituency is a potential nightmare. If a fire had taken place in that building, there would have been a need for some prosecutions.

Importantly, anyone living in a McCarthy and Stone property today should ask what fire certificates and regulations have been put in place. Indeed, I urge every fire authority to go into McCarthy and Stone properties to check that we do not have the horror story that we have at Cestrian Court. I thank the residents of Cestrian Court for their doggedness and determination in raising this issue. I feel heartily sorry for them as they have been left in this position through no fault of their own. It is another example of where people make money out of developments, but those individuals who have often put their life savings into wanting a happy retirement are left out of pocket. I am sorry, but that cannot be right.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I commend and congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, and on bringing this important topic before the House. It is a matter that we all believe to be of grave concern.

Let me begin by saying how important I and the Government believe it is that we further develop the later living and retirement housing sector. Many people in our country live in very large homes. That is fine for the many people who are happy to live in those homes, but we know full well that many people would like to downsize. It is economically sensible for them to do so, as well as good for their health and welfare. Unfortunately, however, there are not enough retirement and later living properties in our country in the right places, and with the right quality, care levels and social networks to provide that opportunity. We want to do more to help with that, but it is disappointing and concerning to hear the story that the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, so I am very happy to look at the specifics that he has raised and work with him to ensure that the challenges that he has brought to our attention are addressed.

We have, however, introduced substantial reforms through the Building Safety Bill, which, with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will strengthen our building safety regime. We have also taken action to ensure that care homes and residential places are safe, because we all want those living and working in retirement communities to feel safe. We have listened to concerns about fire safety in care homes and specialised housing, and we are currently exploring the evidence surrounding risks that may exist in buildings occupied by vulnerable individuals. We are also conducting a full technical review of Approved Document B, which is the statutory guidance to building regulations, where we will look at the fire safety provisions in care homes and specialised housing. As I say, I will also consider the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised about Cestrian Court and other places.

While we have already made important changes, we fundamentally need to change the culture so that residents’ concerns are listened to and, where problems arise, they are dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The Building Safety Bill is bringing forward the biggest reforms in nearly 40 years and will establish a building safety regulator. That means that in the future, later-living homes and specialised housing that are in scope will be covered by the new, more stringent building control regulatory regime during design and construction. This will ensure that corners are not being cut and buildings are built to a high standard. The new regime will strengthen regulatory oversight before building work commences; throughout construction, including before major changes are made; and when building work is complete.

Importantly, the Bill also paves the way for a national regulator for construction products to oversee a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to all four nations—both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That national regulator, which will be established in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, will have robust market surveillance enforcement capability to take action against companies found to be breaking the rules, including removing unsafe construction products from the market.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome what the Minister is saying about the future. I just wonder what can be done to ensure that not just Cestrian Court but other properties are safe. If Cestrian Court was built by McCarthy and Stone to the shoddy standards that left my constituents in peril, is there any way that McCarthy and Stone could be made to check—or that the Government could perhaps check, through the fire authorities—that the other facilities that it has built meet standards? I would hate to think that one of its other homes might go up in smoke, leading to the tragedy that we have, I think, very narrowly avoided at Cestrian Court.

[Christopher Pincher]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We certainly want, through the changes that we are making, to improve the building control regime in local authorities around the country, and that is what we will achieve through the Building Safety Bill. I also draw his attention to the changes that we are making in the Bill to amend the Defective Premises Act 1972 to extend the period of retrospective action that people can take if they find their property to be defective. We are also including in that Bill a clause that will ensure that building owners or freeholders must take all reasonable steps to find ways of dealing with remediation, and exhaust those steps, before they pass on costs to the residents and leaseholders. I think those are two important steps in the Bill, which I hope will find support across the House.

Our package of reforms will help to make sure that construction products placed on the market are safe and that the public can be confident that products, including those used in the construction of care homes, will perform as they are intended to. The safety of retirement homes under 18 metres will be overseen by the building safety regulator, as part of its responsibility to oversee the safety and performance of all buildings. The regulator will work with the construction industry and technical experts, commissioning research and conducting consultations where necessary to make recommendations to the Government for improving building regulations. By doing so, it will drive both a culture change in the sector, and improve the safety and performance of all buildings. It will also drive improvements in building safety by overseeing the performance of building control bodies, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, through a robust professional and regulatory regime for both registered building control approvers and local authority building control departments.

It is vital that the fire safety regime for these buildings is comprehensive and is working as it should. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires those responsible to ensure that they regularly assess risks from fire to ensure they can take mitigating action to reduce the risk, so it is as low as reasonably practicable. This is not a one-off process or tick-box exercise, but one that requires the ongoing, day-to-day consideration and management of fire risks. That is especially important for the safety and wellbeing of residents of care homes, and other later life and specialised premises. The duties placed on building owners and responsible persons under the fire safety order will be further strengthened by clause 136 of the Building Safety Bill, which takes forward proposals to place a small number of additional duties on them. They include improving co-operation and information sharing, providing residents with relevant fire safety information and enforcing compliance through strengthening the standing of guidance. That will help with compliance and more effective enforcement action in the future—the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.

The Home Office also intends to bring forward new regulations that will implement the majority of the recommendations made by the Grenfell Tower inquiry in the phase 1 report, which require changes in the law. The measures will help to make all residential buildings safer by placing new duties on responsible persons, which will improve fire safety for their residents and assist fire and rescue services in planning for, and responding to, a fire.

We want to support people to stay safe in their homes. Fire and rescue services visit homes and offer person-centred fire safety advice, providing smoke alarms and other fire safety equipment where necessary. To support those physical visits, the National Fire Chiefs Council has created an online tool to allow residents to make informed self-assessment choices and be guided on any other steps they can take to improve their fire safety. The Government are also playing their part, working closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council and local fire and rescue services to deliver the long-running “Fire Kills” campaign. Through a mix of media advertising, partnership working and promotional activity, the campaign has helped to drive down the number of fires and fire- related fatalities to its current historic low levels.

I know that there is a united desire across the House to ensure that those living in retirement communities feel safe in their homes, and I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing these issues to our attention tonight. Debates such as this are incredibly important as we work together to protect all residents. I assure him and Members across the House that the Government remain committed to helping residents in what we know is a most challenging situation, because in doing so, we will ensure that there is public confidence in the sector—a sector that we are determined to grow, and we have a mutual interest in doing so—and bring about lasting change in an industry that will put its residents’ welfare first. I am grateful to him and I thank him for his attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Post Office Update

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend, a former postmaster himself, for that. He absolutely understands the situation and has been a dogged champion. We did say that if things should change, we would change. Things have clearly changed as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment. He raises a pertinent point about Fujitsu. It is for Post Office Ltd to work out the terms of compensation around this issue, but I am sure it will hear what he said and raise that incredibly pertinent point as redress is sought.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also give him credit: in the 10-plus years that I, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and Lord Arbuthnot have been campaigning on this issue, this is the first time that a Minister has admitted that when things go wrong he will change them.

It is right that we get full disclosure of the facts and justice for those who have been wronged. May I ask the Minister about disclosure? Will that include the ministerial submissions from the Post Office throughout this scandal and the role of the Government shareholder on the board of the Post Office? That is key to the reasons why things were not questioned. Also remember that in 2019 the Post Office spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending a civil case that was, frankly, completely indefensible.

I stress one last thing to the Minister. I know that Ministers like to hide behind the Post Office, saying that this is its fault. It is not: it is a wholly owned company of the Government. The Government have to take responsibility for some of this; they cannot just blame the Post Office.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has rightly been pushing on behalf of postmasters in general for a number of years.

Yes, nothing is off the table. We want to get justice and answers for people, and that clearly includes the role of the Government and shareholders. The fact is that, yes, we are the single shareholder through UK Government Investments, but that allows Post Office Ltd to work operationally independently of the Government —otherwise, there would be no point in splitting it that way. None the less, as I say, our representatives on the board have been asking that question. We were assured that Horizon was robust in all these areas. None the less, within the inquiry those questions will no doubt be asked and I expect them to be answered.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Before we look at wider compensation, I want first to understand and make sure that we can learn the lessons and find out exactly what happened and when. This happened over a 20-year period and we need to unwind those 20 years, but we want to do that as quickly as possible so that we can get a timely response and justice for those people, rather than waiting for the three, four or five years that a statutory inquiry might take.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister said that this was a landmark judgment; I just wonder what it is going to take for the Government actually to take action. People’s lives were ruined. People went to prison. People took their own lives. Surely the way forward now is, first, for the Government to put in place a compensation for all those who lost something. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) just made a good point: it was the Government and the Post Office that spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money basically to bankrupt people so that they had to settle.

What is actually needed is a judicial inquiry, because the toothless inquiry that the Minister has set up will not have any powers to force people to give evidence. Without that, we are not going to get to the truth, because the guilty people need to be exposed. I know that the Minister has said he is trying but, alas, I have dealt with numerous Ministers over the past 10 years and I think his name is going to be added to the board of useless Ministers we have seen dealing with this issue over the past few years. We need action now, Minister, not more words.

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about unpicking something that happened over 20 years and describes a landmark judgment, then expects it to be dealt with within three days. That belies the complexity and depth of the situation. The decisions on Post Office Ltd’s litigation strategy were taken by the Post Office. The Government were not party to the litigation; they monitored the situation and challenged the approach taken by the Post Office.

The right hon. Gentleman also talks about the fact that the non-statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams cannot compel people to give evidence, but at the moment everybody is participating in that inquiry. If that changes, obviously our view will change.