Industrial and Mining Towns

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, former mining towns that voted more for Brexit than anywhere else in the country do not want investment that goes round them; they want investment in them—that people can see inside them. Do the Government realise that their credibility in the next five years will be judged on this more than on any other issue?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord makes a good point to the extent that we are focusing in. It takes us back to the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on coalfields, regeneration and steelworks. The Government have provided funding to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust—the CRT—which seeks to support former mining communities in England; in the last seven years, we have provided £22 million. On the steelworks, he will know that much funding has gone into the Redcar steelworks, to the tune of £46 million.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 General Committees

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I have attempted to read these documents, though it gets a little difficult because the Whips on the Labour side choose to put me on one of these Committees every single week. They have done so for several months, and when I failed to get to one on time, they sent me a very heavy, threatening letter. The good news is that there is a new Member back on the Labour Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), so he can fill my place on Statutory Instrument Committees in future weeks.

I have spoken about the community infrastructure levy at every stage since it was introduced, and I want to clarify a couple of matters, because it has had a rather chequered history. The Minister used the term “self-build”. Most self-builders are not people who actually build themselves but people who commission small building firms to build a house for them; in areas such as mine, it might be an outhouse, the dividing up of a large mining property from the past, or the conversion of an old barn. People have repeatedly found problems with the CIL, and I want to clarify whether those problems have now been removed.

The first problem was that if a person were developing a single property—let us say, converting a barn—they were required to pay absurd amounts of money. I identified in my constituency a young couple trying to build their first home who were required to pay £47,500; the highest I could find was in Hertfordshire, where someone would have to pay £183,000. Will the Minister confirm that those small developments are not going to be done over and stopped by those fees? That was happening.

Secondly, I found a peculiarity in that a local authority could bring in the CIL for an unused shop building for which there was a change of use. One example that arose in my local area was a building that had been derelict for quite a number of years—about 10 years. A local entrepreneur—a former miner made good—wants to convert it into a premise that will attract people, but because a change of use is required, he is required to pay the CIL. Is that absurdity going to be removed by this SI, and if not, will that be the next stage? Clearly, we are trying to do up town centres where we have buildings that have been derelict for 10 years or longer. Someone is prepared to invest their own money, but has to pay a large tax for the privilege of doing so—in this case, £23,000 for tiny little premises.

Thirdly, nothing is more absurd and damaging than a requirement for up-front payments. I have seen a whole series of developments over the years. When we say “developments”, people normally think of major, large, multi-million or even bigger companies. Actually, in my area, it is often very small companies doing work for individuals who are not very well off. For example, an elderly widow with a large house wished to demolish that house and have a smaller property built. She was asked to pay about £30,000 in CIL money up front, and therefore decided not to proceed. There are countless examples of that kind of thing happening, including someone who was trying to develop—put, say, three properties on—a bit of wasteland. They were not someone who was used to development; it was the first time they had gone into the development field, and they were asked to pay that amount of money up front. That has been a huge problem, so is that up-front payment capped in any way, based on scale of development?

Another problem that has occurred in recent times is the definition of Traveller sites or showman’s sites versus that of park homes. Could the Minister confirm whether Traveller sites are exempt, whether park homes are exempt, and how the two are defined? For example, I have two sites in my area where planning is being sought for what are described as Traveller sites, but they are permanent. If they are permanent, does the CIL apply, and is there a perverse incentive to try to get something categorised if people not of Traveller heritage travel to and from the site as opposed to permanently living there? Particularly when it comes to showmen’s sites, where, for six months of the year, there is a requirement to park and house large vehicles, is that covered by the CIL? If not, is there a perverse bias in the planning system that could operate against the showman getting a suitable location?

Finally, the Minister breezes over the question of the bureaucracy tax. I am concerned if there is a 5% bureaucracy tax for paperwork. I do not know whether the Minister has cleared this with his leadership candidates, but why is there a 5% bureaucracy tax? Why is a developer of whatever level having to pay a tax for bureaucracy? Where is the proof that anyone wants that bureaucracy? My community does not want more bureaucracy. We do not need more bits of paper from the local council. We want more housing suitably located and ideally of the right size. We want local people to be able to get on with their lives. If they want to build or extend their house or convert a barn, they should be able to do so rationally without being stopped by additional tax. Where there is major development, we want the tax going into local infrastructure, not into bureaucracy. Why is there a bureaucracy tax?

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I will let the Minister respond.

[Sarah Newton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

Okay, I will give way.

[Sarah Newton]

Thank you. I am sorry. I was a little confused as to whether the hon. Gentleman had come to the end of his speech.

As somebody who advocated this openness and transparency, to call it a bureaucracy tax is a misnomer, because the parish councils in my constituency really want to know how Cornwall Council is allocating the section 106 and the CIL funding. People in the villages and communities are sometimes very suspicious about decisions made at the centre about infrastructure, and suspicious that the funds are not flowing from the individual developments in their communities into the infrastructure that they would like to see, such as new schools, road junctions or cycle pathways.

Enabling greater transparency is a good thing, but councils have to bear some cost in doing this—

[Sarah Newton]

Sorry, Mr Gapes. My natural enthusiasm got the better of me.

[John Mann]

I advise the hon. Lady that the best bit of legislation from this Government originated from a Labour Government. Neighbourhood planning was wisely taken up by both the coalition Government and the current Government with my strong support every time. If there is a neighbourhood development plan—Bassetlaw is a leader and has more plans than any other council in the country—25% goes into the local community. Parish and town councils are boldly going forward with their plans and are able to draw down more money. It is the best single piece of legislation by this Government and their coalition predecessor, albeit stolen from a very good Labour Government idea, but that is good politics. Why a bureaucracy tax as well? We do not need it. Neighbourhood planning is one of the good things that the Government have managed to do.

Stronger Towns Fund

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said on that join-up and on the potential that it offers between the different funds, and his emphasis on towns. Yes, the focus thus far has been on cities, which is why this is about setting out a different course, recognising that towns in many ways have been left behind. It is why we need to focus more on seeing the solutions at that level, where we can make a significant difference, and I look forward to working with him as we take that forward.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) have made important points, which I am sure the Secretary of State will contemplate. Is he delighted by the cross-party support for this welcome initiative? In accepting the enthusiasm, including from the Labour Front Bench, will he feed back to the Chancellor that such is the enthusiasm of Members across the House for this idea, that if more moneys are put into the fund, that will be even more welcome?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. He makes an important point, because in some ways this transcends party. It is about how we reshape our towns, recognising that some have been left behind because of lack of investment from many, many Governments. This fund begins to reset that relationship, and there is almost a new sense of Unionism, with a strong sense of all communities playing their part. We should look positively at what the fund can deliver alongside other initiatives so that our towns are absolutely at the forefront.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are responsible for dealing with this. She will know there are procedures and committees within the national executive committee that deal with complaints and others that deal with other processes.

Let me be clear that anyone who denies the reality of antisemitism on the left, anyone who thinks that antisemitism is a legitimate part of criticising the political actions of the Israeli Government and anyone who says that complaints about antisemitism are smears on our party is wrong. They do not have the endorsement of the Labour party; they do not have the endorsement of its leader; and they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They have adopted what Bebel labelled the “socialism of fools.”

Our party must call out this poisonous ideology, which encourages people to place the blame for society’s ills at the feet of the vulnerable and persecuted, whether they be immigrants, the unemployed, refugees or those from a different ethnic or religious background. The Labour party has long fought the dissemination of such false narratives, which we know serve only to divide us and distract us from our common cause of a fairer society.

Antisemitism, with its conspiracy theories, seeks to divide ordinary working people. The lies that it propagates about wealth, power and designs on world domination are as dangerous as they are stupid. Those on the far left who are foolish enough to believe that their antisemitism is a form of anti-elitism or anti-imperialism have no place in the Labour party or any modern political party.

Last year, a major study analysing news stories across the English-speaking world found that, according to every metric, fake news is more popular and more widely consumed than factual, accurate stories. We truly live in an era of fake news and imagined enemies, where explicit abuse hides behind anonymous avatars and where political debate is shaped by memes and viral videos. The rise of fake news is dangerous for us all, but this danger is most acute for the Jewish community and it is felt intensely. There are approximately 170,000 antisemitic online searches each year in the UK alone, but the scale of the challenge must not daunt us or deter us from what needs to be done.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Over the last 16 years, I have written repeatedly to every single party here today to raise specific issues, with great success across every single party. In every single instance, I have written to the relevant party leader. Does my hon. Friend accept that people are interested in the structures, in the machinations of those structures and in leadership? What leadership will the Labour shadow Cabinet specifically give to Jewish members of the Labour party and to the Jewish community?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I shall comment on one issue only—not the racists and the antisemites who have been exposed, but the enablers, because the enablers are an equally big problem and there are a lot of them, not least in the Labour party.

I will give one example from the previous debate in which I spoke. One enabler went online and put out to a lot of people the suggestion that I had exaggerated and lied about an incident relating to a dead bird that was sent to my wife by a misogynist antisemite in 2012, for which someone was prosecuted. This enabler found a press cutting from the Worksop Guardian that showed that someone was prosecuted for the misogynist crime. That is accurate, but this enabler, a journalist, did not bother to contact me before he put this out to very many people. He did not ask me whether what I had said was wrong. He therefore did not know that, when in advance of that, I had given the specific antisemitic literature from a man called Roger Dyas-Elliott to Nottinghamshire police, the police requested that the antisemitism was not included in the prosecution—as a dead bird had been sent through the post, the prosecution would be immediate and successful, and this would therefore delay things—and, on that basis, I had agreed.

Dyas-Elliott is an antisemite whom I have challenged repeatedly in my local Labour party. I banned him from my office, and through his union, the National Union of Domestic Appliances and General Operatives, had his pass taken away at the Labour party conference in 2010. This is what he said in 2010, which led to my first action against him. In a letter to the Worksop Guardian, during the general election, he called for an investigation into the motives and machinations of the Zionist fraternity and the conduct and behaviour of the Bilderberg Group. He is an antisemite who repeatedly, in letters to the press and letters to me, put out this vile stuff, and therefore I challenged him. I took him on in meetings, and I banned him, kicked him out of campaigns and stopped him being a candidate.

That is the truth of what happened with Roger Dyas-Elliott, a misogynist criminal and an antisemite, yet this enabler, Kevin Maguire—a national journalist, associate editor of the Daily Mirror and correspondent for the New Statesman, a press pass holder here and one of the people used by Labour party Front Benchers to put out their message repeatedly—puts this out, and what do I get as a response? Let us quote from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party forum the next day:

“I enjoyed the too and froing when Mann was accusing a guy of being anti-semitic and racist”,

and

“I hate this man!... I’d like to punch him in the face!”

I do not have time to go through the rest, but that one was from Joe Kelsall in a private Facebook group. He was a Labour party member in Sefton, Liverpool, and he is still a Labour party member, despite my complaints. Joe Kelsall is a man who wants to punch me in the face, following the enabling of Maguire.

The enablers of antisemitism are as big a problem as the antisemites, and they are more numerous. It is time the enablers were exposed. I have exposed one: Kevin Maguire—an enabler of racism.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I hope we are not just “considering” Holocaust Memorial Day, with our antiquated practices in this place, but endorsing it.

I pay tribute to my team of Danny Stone, Amy Wagner and Ally Routledge, who put together the Sara conference in November—“Sara” after the Nazi name forced on Jewish women in 1938 to show that they were Jewish. That conference looked at misogyny and anti- semitism; I bring to the House just one nugget from it. In this country, in the past year, there were 170,000 anti- semitic internet searches. Since last year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, searches on “Holocaust hoax” are up 30,000. We have talked in previous debates about holocaust denial. Let me put another term on the record, because it is the pertinent one in this country for some at the moment—holocaust revisionism. Some people want to twist and turn what happened for their own ends; they would like to give some lip service, but only some, while twisting the facts and minimising the consequences and the implications.

We have seen it in the past few days, with the TV personality, Rachel Riley, and the abuse that she has received from many for standing up to antisemitism, in this week. Well, I stand, and I hope we all stand, with Rachel Riley, recognising the bravery of that young woman—one amongst many, one of the better known, and therefore the more abused—for standing up against modern antisemitism.

My parents died very young, but I only ever saw them both angry once. That was in 1972, seeing the television footage of Israeli athletes being murdered in Munich. That meant so much, in terms of understanding the realities of the Jewish people at the time. That was the only time I ever saw my parents angry together in their lives but, if they were alive today, that would not have been the only time that they were angry. Holocaust revisionism is the current-day plague that we have to challenge and fight, rather than the ignorant and thick holocaust deniers of the past, who were quite easy to challenge. There are far too many around.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Mann]

If I may, I will continue.

The problem is not just a British one, and we do not like talking about some of these things, but I am quite hard-nosed about some things now. When I went around Majdanek, I observed it in detail. In an hour, at every major exhibit and in the gas chambers, one could go around without even realising that the Jewish people were the target of the Nazis in the holocaust. I went to the cathedral, up the tower, and I did not need binoculars—one can see Majdanek from the centre of Lublin now, as people could at the time. Yet there is still not a single reference in the exhibitions to the fact that the target there—the mass murders—were primarily the local and Polish Jewish population.

Holocaust revisionism—it is a problem all over Europe, it is a problem in my political party, it is a problem in this country and it is a problem that we are not facing up to sufficiently robustly or successfully. That is why Rachel Riley gets all the crap that she gets at the moment. Holocaust revisionism is not understanding the realities of what happened and what that means today. That is why I am angry. I endorse, as I am sure we all endorse, Holocaust Memorial Day today.

Anti-Semitism

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

When my family helped to form the Labour party in Leeds in 1906, they suffered terribly because of that. The Jewish community in Leeds stood alongside them and supported them. That is why 13 years ago I took on the role of chairing the all-party group against anti-Semitism. I did not expect today, when Labour Members stand in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues and with the Jewish community, not just no solidarity but to be targeted by an organisation called Momentum, which has happened to all of us who stood in solidarity. But worse than that, there is explicit targeting of Jewish members of the parliamentary Labour party because they are Jewish. That is what is going on at the moment.

When I took on this voluntary cross-party role, I did not expect my wife to be sent, by a Labour Marxist anti-Semite, a dead bird through the post. I did not expect my son, after an Islamist death threat, to open the door, when he was in the house on his own as a schoolboy, to the bomb squad. I did not expect my wife, in the last few weeks, from a leftist anti-Semite in response to the demonstration, to be threatened with rape. I did not expect my daughter similarly to have to be rung up in the last few weeks by special branch to check out her movements in this country. No, I did not expect any of that.

I will tell you the principles we have operated on, from the very first speech I made on this 13 years ago in this Chamber: every party in this House should look after its own backyard first. I have said that repeatedly on hundreds of occasions since. I have specifically, in private letters to every party in this House, repeatedly challenged anti-Semitism. For years, action was taken, and it was painful action. I am not sure that people in all parties welcomed getting the letters and the discussions that they had with me, but that was the principle that we have operated on, and we have worked cross-party.

I recall that Jewish people used to say when I held meetings, “Is it true that there is a growth in anti-Semitism?” We identified 13 years ago the three forms of anti-Semitism: Islamist anti-Semitism, traditional right anti-Semitism, and the anti-Semitism of the new left. That was all documented and has all been discussed in here. It is not new, and those who say that it is a smear to raise this issue need to publicly apologise and to publicly understand what they are doing, what they are saying and the dangers. It does not end with me and my family. It does not end with Jewish Members of Parliament here. Where this stuff ends is with what happened in Copenhagen, in Brussels and in France repeatedly, including four weeks ago: people murdered because they are Jewish. That is where this ends, and we know where history takes that. That is the reality now.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, which I wholly associate myself with. Does he share the deep shame that I, and I think many people within the Labour party, feel that incidents have been repeatedly reported—over and over and over again—and yet action has quite often not been taken?

[John Mann]

It is constant. This weekend in my constituency and last night in my constituency—it is constant. There is explicit anti-Semitism, and then there is the bigger group—the excusers of anti-Semitism, the people who say, “This is something to do with who the leader of the Labour party is and challenging him.” No, it is not—in the 13 years I have been doing this—and what Jewish people say to me now is different from what they said 13 years ago, when they asked, “Is it true that there is growth in anti-Semitism?” Five years ago, Jewish people would come up to me and say, “We are concerned that there is a rise in anti-Semitism.” I am stopped in the street everywhere I go now by Jewish people saying to me, very discreetly, “I am scared.” Young people and old people say, “I am scared.” We see what happened in France, in Belgium and in Copenhagen and we understand why people are scared.

People—young Jewish members—are scared to go to a Labour party meeting with me, because they are fearful that they will be intimidated and threatened and that their identity will be challenged. Any Jewish person is entitled to say that they are, to define themselves as, an anti-Zionist, or a non-Zionist, and I have no right to challenge them. Any Jewish person, as the vast majority do, is entitled to say, “I am a Zionist,” and I have no right to deny them that. Those that do are racists. Just a change in language—in the use of the word “Zionist” as a pejorative insult—by the Labour party would alter the dialogue in this country in a very big way.

We all have a choice in what we do. Stand in solidarity with the Jewish Members of Parliament under attack today. That is the role of parliamentarians.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, no. The hon. Lady is not greedy; she is just keen.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

9. How many local authorities have had their local plans signed off by his Department in the last two years.

[The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)]

In nearly all cases, it is for local authorities to take the final decision on a local plan. In the past two years, 50 local plans were deemed sound by planning inspectors, and one by the Ministry itself.

[John Mann]

Yes, but let us look at this consultation from last week. According to the Government, neighbourhood plans can be overturned by local councils above them, and—above them—local council plans can be overturned by the Secretary of State and his faceless bureaucrats. What is wrong in this country with freedom and democracy, with local people making the decisions effectively, fairly and democratically? Is this Joe Stalin or English democracy that this Government are forcing upon us?

[Dominic Raab]

For all that thunder and lightning, we are investing £23 million to support neighbourhood planning groups. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that 94% of councils have published local plans, compared with 32% when Labour left office. The previous Labour Government wantonly failed to deliver on encouraging the take-up of local plans, where this Government have succeeded.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 General Committees

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Yet again, an SI on CIL—the most incompetent piece of Government legislation in our lifetime. It has required a whole series of amendments, because it was so incompetently brought in. I recall highlighting the £180,000 CIL that every single new housebuilder in Hertfordshire would have had to pay on the original proposals, which, thankfully, were changed by pressure and amendment, with a little bit of cross-party work to do that.

I want to clarify whether there is anything in the proposals that will prevent my constituent who moved into a property that has been derelict for five years to create a new enterprise to deal with that terrible site, which is a blight on the town centre, from having to pay £15,000 tax for the privilege of regenerating the local economy. Or is there anything in the proposals for my constituent who wishes to knock her house down and build another one, but who has to pay £10,000 in CIL tax upfront, in cash, for the privilege of building a more environmentally sound, more beautiful and more fitting property than the old wreck she is in at the moment? Is there anything in the SI that will address those issues? If not, can we expect more SIs? I volunteer to sit on them, if they address those two problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I think we are agreed on that point. There has been no change to the rate. The indexation applies to the specific change; it does not apply to pre-CIL matters or applications.

The lack of clarity relates to an application originally brought by Peabody, a registered provider of affordable housing, and a judicial review involving Wandsworth Borough Council. I make that point because we are trying to ensure that the original intention of the 2010 regulations is enforced. Those regulations almost invariably have been properly applied by local authorities, in accordance with the original intention, and accepted by developers. That case is a fairly isolated incident of the wrong interpretation being applied. None the less, for the sake of developers, local authorities and communities, we want to ensure that there is proper legal certainty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth raised the issue of CIL’s application to the whole country rather than just to London. I hope that I made this point in my opening remarks, but I am happy to reaffirm it: in the wider country, £240 million was raised through CIL last year. CIL is certainly not just a metropolitan or London-centric issue; it applies to the whole country. We are trying to ensure that, where there is much-needed homebuilding, infrastructure is provided, too. CIL is an important contribution to that, certainly not just in London.

My hon. Friend also asked about section 106. That is, in effect, the negotiated contribution that a developer makes, bearing in mind the infrastructure that is required and the viability of the development. The distinction is that that is agreed, whereas CIL is, in effect, levied, but both are critical. We want to ensure that we provide the homes we need in the places we need them, with the necessary infrastructure and funding.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw, in his usual tub-thumping way, criticised the legislation. He made some perfectly reasonable points. I gently point out to him that the primary legislation for CIL was passed under the last Labour Government, but in the spirit of co-operation, if he has any further ideas or thoughts about the legislation or its application to his constituency, he should feel free to write to me.

[John Mann]

CIL’s introduction, and the regulations that came with it, came in 2012. It was raised first with the Chancellor at the Treasury Sub-Committee, and then in the House by me and the Minister’s colleague—I cannot remember where he is from, but his first name is Richard and his surname is rashers of pork that are eaten on a morning. He is a very good man, and he and I campaigned to get the CIL down to something rational. I want to know about my constituent who is putting in his own money to do up a derelict property and is getting taxed for the privilege. That does not seem to be the intended consequence, but it is the fact of the matter. That is not good news for someone who is trying to invest.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with all the facts of the case. If he would like to write to me, I am happy to address them. I was simply making the point about the primary legislation. There ought to be cross-party support for an important mechanism to provide targeted investment where homes are needed.

The hon. Member for Harrow East—