East Midlands Economy

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is great to be both back in the Chamber and able to speak about the east midlands, which is a region that we do not speak of enough in this place. I look forward to the Minister getting a clear message from all of us here about how important a focus on the east midlands will be in the coming months and years.

Although those of us here today will probably not agree on absolutely everything—I am sorry to say to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) that in a moment I may just pick up on one or two points she made—in general, the combined and aggregate view of the people in this room, and indeed in the east midlands, is that we of course want to see our area doing better, and we also want Government support for it in the right places and having the right, effective outcomes. Overall, that will help us all across the east midlands, from the very north, where I am, to the very south, where some of my colleagues in this debate are.

We have much to celebrate. It is important to understand the achievements that we have made, or are in the process of making, to recognise the importance of where we need to go forward. I was pleased to see the freeport, which I am sure colleagues will talk about in a moment. It will be transformational for the region, especially for particular parts of it, but even those of us who are a little further away from it are glad that it has come.

There are also the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) talked about—the longer-term and more strategic issues that we need to tackle in the east midlands. They are also positive. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues on those in the years ahead.

Everyone in the next hour will make the case for individual areas, I am sure, and I want to make the case for my area. We have already achieved good progress on broadband, which is hugely important for rural areas in particular, in constituencies such as mine on the edge of the Peak, in places such as Barlow and Spinkhill.

We have successfully convinced the Government to spend a lot of money in Staveley and in Clay Cross through the town deals. We are one of only a handful of places to get two town deals in close proximity, and we are very grateful for that. It is now the responsibility of the local councils, which we are working well with, to ensure that the money is delivered effectively into projects that change our area for the long term.

Only a few months ago, we had the very good news that we were going to get a new free school in our area on the old Avenue regeneration site. That is another example of where, after a decade of aspirations but being unable to deliver them, we are now plugging the gaps in funding and finding ways to deliver the things we need for local communities.

We have great opportunities, some of which I share with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). I look forward to, and will continue to support, opportunities such as the long-awaited Staveley bypass, which is now moving to the next level, which is positive; the work on the A61, which is being led by Derbyshire County Council, to try to secure long-term improvements there; the possibility of reopening rail along the Barrow Hill line; regeneration for towns such as Dronfield, Killamarsh and Eckington in my patch; and the actual physicality of what the integrated rail plan—when we see it—does for my constituency. Everyone, whatever their view of High Speed 2 or other aspects of train policy, wants to see an outcome to the integrated rail plan and what it means for individual constituencies.

In the couple of seconds I have left, I want to say one thing. Infrastructure is vital to our area, just as it is to every other area around the country. However, infrastructure is not everything. That does not mean that the primary message from this debate to the Government and the Minister should not be that we want more infrastructure—we want the ability to build a more successful east midlands over the long term—but there are many other elements of Government policy where the state can help that we also need to consider.

We need to ensure that we are levelling up across education. One of the things that I completely agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about is the need to level up on skills. We also need to level up on aspiration, opportunities and ensuring that people in our areas know that they can achieve things in a way that, when I came out of school in Chesterfield 20 years ago, we did not used to be sure of. If we do that, combined with the infrastructure improvements that I am sure will be talked about for the next hour and have already been articulated, we will have a great case to make for our region in the coming decades.

Planning for the Future

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important and timely debate, as well as my colleagues from the south-west who have spoken. It has been a bit of a south-west fest so far and I feel like I need to pull the centre of gravity back and further north towards the north midlands, because, sadly, we have similar challenges to those of many of my colleagues who have already spoken.

I represent a constituency bedevilled for more than a decade by planning issues caused by the failure to put a local plan in place in a timely and effective manner, as is so often the case. That means a cascade of unwanted and unnecessary development, followed by a local plan that does not necessarily work for the local community in its first iteration and initial drafts. We are in the middle of trying to resolve that knotty conundrum after so many years of it failing to be resolved.

As a concept, I welcome many of the things that the Government are trying to do. There is no denying that the planning system, as it stands, is sub-optimal. It is broken, in places, and does not work either for those seeking to get on the housing ladder to be housed in the first place or for those interacting more closely with it, be they developers, planners or applicants. I accept that there is a fundamental problem with planning that needs to be resolved. The evidence bases that have to be put together by local councils are too detailed and take too long. The overall process is laborious, and the plans produced often bear—at best—a relationship to problems that existed five years ago rather than current problems.

We need to reinvent community engagement. I welcome the Government putting all those ideas on the table in principle but, as with everything in planning, the devil is in the detail. The Government have brought forward a set of consultations that are deliberately high-level and that deliberately encourage this kind of debate. I welcome their commitment to that, but the challenge is the detail and the devil within it. I can see that zoning could be welcome for my constituency in principle, or it could be significantly deleterious to my constituency if it was not not implemented in the right way. I can see that the streamlining of the planning processes should be welcomed because it gives an effective outcome to everybody involved more quickly, and I should be able to welcome that in principle, but the issue is the devil underneath that streamlining. I can see the replacement of soundness as positive in principle, as long as the actual reality on the ground enables us as communities to make better decisions.

The same goes for better engagement and planning, fast-track for beauty, and section 106 replacements: they could all be good in principle but we need that detail. We need it in the next stages of the consultation before we can have the comfort that our communities demand. That is particularly the case for those communities who have had historical challenges with planning to ensure they have confidence that the White Paper will try to resolve some of those challenges.

The questions that remain for communities such as mine are about how, for example, we reconcile the building of more houses, which is necessary in many parts of the country, with the desire to protect, which is apparently underneath the principle of zoning. There is a tension between those two principles and at the end of that process, one will have to take priority over the other. It is that decision that is the most important for my community.

How do you speed up the creation of a local plan process—a great idea in principle—while ensuring that a greater decision-making process is embedded at the start of that process and that people have the right level of oversight and ability to influence it? How will you reduce an evidence base—again, a great idea in principle—in a system that is so formal and specific to individual areas, and at times so litigious, which is the whole point of why the evidence base is often created and takes so long?

How will localism be maintained with such an increase in standardisation? How will we ensure that the neighbourhood plans that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) highlighted will have a continued central place within this system? How fundamentally will the very good ideas and principles within “Planning for the Future” interact with the housing methodology? In that regard, I also have concerns about the overall implementation and impact on areas such as mine.

In principle, there are some good ideas and opportunities to make a system that has not worked for many decades better. However, it is the detail that we need and that our communities require to be comfortable with these ideas.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, and to put on the record my opposition to the Bill which, as has been pointed out by many, risks undermining devolution by driving a wedge between our Government and the devolved Administrations and infringing on the devolution settlement. The Trades Union Congress is particularly concerned that, unless specifically exempted, restrictions may be placed on the ability of devolved authorities to adopt new or revised regulations to support progressive public policy objectives, which may have a direct or indirect discriminatory impact.

Fundamentally, this legislation shamefully undermines the basis of the Good Friday agreement, a solemnly agreed international treaty that laid the basis for peace in Ireland. Ministers should not need reminding that the withdrawal agreement is part of a binding international treaty, and that breaching a treaty breaches international law. However, we should not be surprised, because the Conservative party has repeatedly shown contempt for international law and collaboration. There are now real problems with Britain’s approach to international law, particularly with regard to the protection of human rights in the UK.

In many areas, particularly in the spheres of immigration control, national security, counter-terrorism, freedom of association and speech and the treatment of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, UK law has frequently been the subject of criticism from experts such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe. Recently, we also learned that the UK is to resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns that they could be used against civilians in Yemen, in complete violation of international humanitarian law. Today, the Government are increasing the healthcare charge for migrants, widely thought to impinge on fundamental human rights. It is therefore clear from the Bill and many contributions from Government Members that there is little or no respect for democracy, devolution or international diplomacy on the Government Benches.

My contribution is brief, but I conclude by saying that, while some of the Government’s amendments aim to correct the Government’s approach, they do little fundamentally to resolve the vast array of problems with the Bill as a whole.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I will focus my remarks—like many, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), whom it is a pleasure to follow—on the key clauses and amendments, most of which stem, so far as I can see, which is why I support them, from the absolute need to retain the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, both for the future and temporarily, in the face of a regrettably provocative and unreasonable stance from the European Union.

I have listened to many powerful speeches, today and on previous days, from all parts of the Chamber and from all vantage points, on the Bill itself and the amendments to it. It will not be a surprise that I do not share the views of Scottish National party Members or their amendments; my view remains that those amendments may result in—or may explicitly seek, in many instances—the skewing of, or disruption to, the common market of the United Kingdom, which has served us so well for many centuries.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there are actually differences in regulations at the moment, and have been for many years? They have never disrupted trade within the UK.

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely recognise that, which is why I chose my words extremely carefully in referencing the common market, rather than saying that we are absolutely the same. I accept that there are differences, but the overall benefit of the United Kingdom, and why I am a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, is that I see in the coming together of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England something greater than the sum of its parts. I know that we will never agree on that; I recognise that the hon. Lady has profound differences with me, but I hope she will accept my view that the UK is greater than the sum of its parts.

More broadly, I do not agree with some of the sentiments expressed today or in previous discussions regarding the Government’s position towards the EU, as outlined by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. It seems to me that the EU appears to have again successfully found our domestic fault-lines and pressure points, in this instance the internal market of the United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland, to aid its own interests in the negotiations.

There is no doubt, as has been indicated by our exchange already, that the debate on the structuring of the Bill and the structure of our internal market is a challenging one in places, within this Chamber and beyond. To me, however, the Bill and its clauses seem only logical in supporting the key principles of mutual recognition of goods, recognition of qualifications and non-discrimination of goods and trading within the UK’s internal market, and from that follows a clear statement about the implications for our wider relationship with Europe as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will not. I apologise, but I wish to make some progress.

The idea that the negotiations will not be difficult or choppy is unrealistic. Our values of openness, internationalism, free trade, partnership, fairness and freedom never change, but we have to prepare our domestic legislation and ensure that it works. Certain key questions remain, however. What else can be done? How else can this be remedied? How can the United Kingdom protect its own interests, its fundamental, historic economic integrity and its right of self-determination? I have yet to hear one realistic alternative to the legislation in front of us today that would create a functioning, coherent and integrated internal market, based on a historic precedent, that would work and that would, as a result, allow us to be clear with our friends over the channel that, as a consequence, the economic integrity of the United Kingdom must be respected.

[Deidre Brock]

I rise to speak to amendment 89 and a number of other amendments that appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I also support Plaid Cymru’s excellent amendment 9.

Scottish architects have raised concerns about the Bill imposing the much lower English building standards on Scotland. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland pointed out this week that Scotland’s standards have helped prevent tragedies like that at Grenfell. Peter Drummond of the RIAS said that

“it is simply inexplicable that the bill seeks to align the more robust Scottish regulations with the English system. Those powers are now to be removed. The lowest common denominator within the UK will apply. And that is, on any fair reading, a spectacularly poor step backwards.”

One would think that England would want to move towards the Scottish standards, but the Bill makes it clear that England’s Government seek to bring Scotland’s standards down rather than improve English standards. That poverty of ambition will haunt England for decades, but it should not be allowed to shackle the rest of us.

In areas of devolved responsibility, the Government in Whitehall are the English Government rather than the UK Government. The Bill, under the myth of removing barriers to trade, ignores that division and seeks to force Scotland—and, of course, Wales and Northern Ireland—into a lockstep Union of diminishing standards and lessening protections, with a Government determined to rip away what they would term red tape and the rest of us term sensible precautions.

The White Paper singled out various building standards as a supposed barrier to the smooth functioning of the market, in spite of decades of experience showing that to be utter nonsense. What about other standards? Will the minimum tolerable standard for living accommodation be lost? Will teaching qualification standards be removed?

In answer to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who is no longer in his place, I have had a number of WhatsApp messages since the earlier exchange and I am told that in England a teacher can be unqualified or can switch subjects. For example, a PE teacher can start to teach physics if there is a shortage. That is not the case in Scotland. Scottish teachers must have a degree in teaching or in the subject they are teaching, plus a postgraduate qualification. Again, that is not the case in England, as I understand it. Will free schools and academy schools be foisted on an unwilling Scottish populous? Will the power grab destroy Scotland’s consumer protections?

The exemptions in schedule 1 include water and sewerage, to be sure, but clause 10 allows the Secretary of State to amend those exemptions by secondary legislation. Is this the back door to privatising Scottish Water?

The Bill is a parade of threats to Scotland, not least among which is the threat to our food and drink industry. The Government will remove food protections. Animal welfare standards, environmental standards and protections against genetically modified crops are all in the firing line. Ministers will tell us that this is not so, but let me tell them that no one believes them. England’s Government will not protect English consumers, but they should not get in the way of Scottish Governments protecting Scottish consumers.

I have solutions. The first is the obvious one and by far the best: Scotland as an independent nation state making her own decisions, which will happen soon. The second is less direct but would have some effect: instead of reducing everything to the lowest common beast, as is proposed in the Bill, raise it instead to the highest standard. Our amendment 89 would do that. Where goods are traded across the borders of these nations, let them be traded at the highest standards. Scotland has banned flammable cladding on high-rise buildings and that should be respected. A ban on hormone-treated beef should be respected, and so on. Respect the higher standard and protect the consumer, the brand reputations, the businesses and the investment—protect jobs. The higher standard should be the goal, not the lower. I urge Members to adopt that principle and Ministers to consider it.

There are other problems with the Bill. Regulations will be made in Whitehall. Unlike the EU process, this will not be co-decision-making. EU competences are constrained by the need to achieve consensus among member states. This regime will be dictatorial: rule from the bunker, not the negotiating table. The mutual recognition clause is actually the Whitehall superiority clause.

Scots academics have given this Bill short shrift. Professor Michael Dougan has been quoted at length in this debate. Professor Michael Keating, professor of politics at Aberdeen University, points out that under the 1999 devolution settlement there was no hierarchy of laws; some were reserved to Westminster and the rest were devolved. Under this Bill, UK Ministers would have

“powers to regulate a…wide range of otherwise devolved matters in the name of the internal market”.

Professor Nicola McEwen of Edinburgh University makes it clear that rules made by the devolved Administrations will not apply to goods or service providers that satisfy less strict regulations in England. She says that

“unfettered market access is given priority. EU principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are…excluded.”

Also on the chopping block would be the right to differentiate production methods in procurement, so there goes organic farming—even if it survives the drop in exports after the Government’s failure to agree an equivalence with the EU. This is an absolute mess, and that is why amendment 89 is so important.

Do not drag us down; use the good example set by a neighbour to raise up your own standards. Let us have goods crossing the national borders of these islands meeting the highest standards, rather than the lowest. There has been much ado about the fact that the Bill will potentially breach international law. It is a matter of at least equal concern that it would change our constitutional arrangements without asking the people for approval in a referendum. Furthermore, the Bill would give Ministers the right further to amend the constitutional settlement without the bother of primary legislation. Some folk would call that a coup d’état. It represents the dismantling of the devolved settlements, the disempowerment of this Parliament and the centralisation of power in the hands of a very few Ministers. Surely that is the mark of a failed state.

In short, this Bill is a mess that would have been better off consigned to a skip, but if we are all going to have to suffer it—we in Scotland, hopefully, for the shortest time possible—at least let us pitch for the higher standard, rather than the lower.

Housing and Planning

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this timely and important debate. The standard of the contributions shows how important it is.

It is a truism to say that planning is a challenge and difficult. We have heard in the past hour or so of different experiences from around the country. My constituency is no different. We have a unique set of circumstances. The previous council administration was kicked out last May, having created problems that built up over a nearly 15-year period—without a plan, with too much speculative development, and with a failure to put infrastructure in place—and a new administration is trying to clear up the mess. The challenge is the relatively blunt instruments inherent to the planning system. In the two minutes I have left, I want to point out to the new Minister—whom I welcome to his position—three such blunt instruments. I hope that he will consider their implications on a larger scale.

The first is the overall framework. The challenge with some of the numbers going through the system, which are having an impact on districts such as mine, is that we are trying to use a national planning policy framework that is supposed to solve problems as disparate as those of Westmorland and Lonsdale, Ealing Central and Acton and North East Derbyshire. That means it does not work well. I should like some form of regional assessment within the NPPF so that we do not need, in the east midlands, to put 6,500 houses in a part of the world where real-terms house prices—the best proxy for demand—have not risen since 2008.

Secondly, I share some of my colleagues’ concerns about neighbourhood plans. When my area’s previous district council administration failed to discharge its responsibilities adequately, parish councils stepped up and tried to fill the gap by passing neighbourhood plans. That gave the unique opportunity of having them signed off by referendums in local communities. Yet, as a result, limited protections are offered. I hope that that can be considered in the future.

Finally, as to the adoption process, which is under way with the new administration in my district, there is a unique issue on which I hope we can somehow get a little more flexibility and pragmatism into the system as a whole. In our part of the world, too much speculative development over the past decade and a half means that we will significantly exceed our own, in my view overinflated, target, which was set by the previous council administration. Yet the inspector is showing only limited pragmatism, at the end of our local plan process, in terms of removing green belt, which still needs to be done to give confidence in the overall local plan process. I hope my remarks have been helpful for the Minister.