North Staffordshire Potteries Towns: Levelling Up

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. As my colleagues have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing this important debate. I begin, as he did, by praising everybody across north Staffordshire and in my constituency for their role in helping us to combat this pandemic. I praise the health and care workers, the leadership in the various hospitals and all the key workers helping us get through this period. I particularly want to praise the scientists for the scientific progress that we have made. The news about the vaccine is fantastic.

The Prime Minister visited a vaccine manufacturer in Wrexham yesterday. I am afraid I beat him to it, because I visited Cobra Biologics at Keele science park on 30 April, where I saw the first of the batch of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine being generated before it had even got into the bioreactor—a really small reactor with some of the first of that viral vector vaccine.

That example from Keele shows what we can do to help levelling up. The science and innovation park there and the investment that we are putting into Keele University are making a huge difference to my constituency. That is not spread across all of my constituency yet, and I will talk about that as I move through this speech, but I would just like to praise the work that all the scientists have done in getting us to the point at which we really have some hope. I think the fact that we now have hope should inform our votes later today in the House about how we combat the next few months. I think that it makes the case for continuing with restrictions, but I will speak more about that later.

I also echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said about the need for more support. I will make that case to my right hon. Friend the Minister here and I know that he will speak to his Treasury colleagues and others about that.

The market town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, as I said in my maiden speech, is also full of mining villages, and it is only because of those mining villages and the quality of the coal that they produced that these pottery towns are where they are at all. That is why they sprang up—because of the quality of the coal that was mined from the North Staffordshire coalfield. We do not actually have potteries ourselves; we do not have pottery kilns in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but we very much feel part of the wider north Staffordshire area.

We have a strong sense of identity and community across the area. I work incredibly well with all four of my colleagues in this debate. I will also point out that there is a friendly rivalry between Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent in particular, and there is a desire to maintain our own identities in the way that my right hon. Friend described. We want to work together. We have worked together. We are working together on covid; the directors of public health speak together about that. But we are very firm about our own identities.

We are the loyal and ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. We have been sending people to this place for far longer than Stoke-on-Trent has done, and long may that continue—but I do not wish to spend the debate winding up my colleagues, because my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is speaking next and I fear that he may get his own back.

If I may, I will reminisce for a minute, with apologies to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). A year ago, we were out on the doorsteps in the election campaign, and I do not know about my colleagues in the other seats that we gained, but it was around that time that people were firmly coming over to us. In the early part of the election campaign, people were waiting and seeing, but as we moved to the last couple of weeks, people were making up their minds, and there were reasons why people voted for us in north Staffordshire last year. There were obviously the reasons around Brexit and the reasons around the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but the third thing that I heard on the doorstep a lot was that people really bought into what we were saying about the need to revitalise market towns, mining villages and places that had felt left behind.

Newcastle is incredibly proud of its market, and people would repeatedly say, “The town is not what it was.” Covid has exacerbated the retail issues in the town centre, and that is why I am so grateful that we were included in the Future High Streets programme. There are certain key elements of the bid that is currently with the Minister or with the Ministry. I am really keen that we hear back soon, because the last I heard was that it would be the last week of November and my watch informs me that today is 1 December. We need to find out how we are getting on with that Future High Streets bid, but the redevelopment of the long-vacant Ryecroft site in the centre of town will be a huge step forward for us. At the moment, that is being used as a testing centre, which is actually a particularly innovative use of the space, but it has otherwise been for too long an eyesore in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It will be used for a mix of employment and residential uses. There will be a new multi-storey car park, so we can knock down the Midway one, which is not fit for purpose. There will be more public space. There will be more direct pedestrian and cycle connections to residential areas north of the town centre. We will have linked plazas, we will have public spaces and there will be ways to complement the improving offer from the street market by creating a community events space in the heart of the town that speaks to the cultural aspect.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has worked hard to develop the bid. It is ambitious and forward thinking, and it will help us to create the vibrant town centre that my constituents are desperate to see. This funding bid is a real opportunity for Newcastle. I really hope that we secure it, and that we hear very soon from the Ministry about where that is going.

I also look forward to the submission of our town deal bid. I should draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a member of the town deal board for Newcastle-under-Lyme. We have another meeting on Thursday. That is another reason why we would like to know about the Future High Streets submission—so that we can build on that in our town deal submission. I have been contributing to the development of that bid. It has been very ably chaired by Trevor McMillan, vice-chancellor of Keele University. It will also bring real change to the town centre—areas that were not covered by the Future High Streets bid. There will be a new skills and enterprise centre in Lancaster Buildings, the iconic buildings in the centre, where Ironmarket meets High Street in Newcastle. For too long they have been empty because of, frankly, overly high business rates. The reason why I could not put my office—my shop—there, where I wanted to, was because the business rates were too high, so I had to go a little bit further afield where the small business rate relief applied in full. We need to look at small business rate relief when we look at high streets.

There is going to be a repurposing of the former Zanzibar nightclub, which pre-dates my time in nightclubs, I am afraid. It is going to be used for mixed use and social housing. There is going to be more connectivity with a town-centre wi-fi and there is also going to be a focus on disadvantaged former mining villages, especially Knutton. We need to put the heart back into Knutton, and Chesterton, and that is what we are proposing to do. That is what levelling up from the public sector is about.

This is not just about the public sector, however. I am struck by how hard the town centre has been hit by covid. First, in the retail element, covid has probably accelerated things that were already there. In recent months, we have lost lots of shops and restaurants, including Laura Ashley, Dorothy Perkins, Edinburgh Woollen Mill and Pizza Hut. Some of them were probably in a bad way before covid, and that has been accelerated. We need to look at repurposing, and I know the Ministry is making it easier to turn former shops into residential or commercial use.

This is also about the hospitality sector. In Newcastle-under-Lyme we have purple flag status, which recognises the quality of our early evening and night-time economy: the pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafés. We have many entrepreneurs investing in our town and bringing jobs to our area, and they are struggling. Levelling up is not just a public-sector activity. I was on a call yesterday with Mr Leon Burton, the chief executive of the Staffordshire and Cheshire Leisure Group. He runs a place called the Milehouse, which is up in Cross Heath—again, an area that really needs levelling up. His business invested £700,000 in making the Milehouse a desirable location, in a spot that used not to be so desirable. He feels that we have not gone far enough in our support for hospitality, and I have to say that I agree. I welcome what the Prime Minister said today about giving wet pubs £1,000. The Milehouse is getting £2,000 a month in grants, but it is spending £1,620 on national insurance contributions and pension contributions, so Mr Burton is getting a net £380 a month to cover everything, including his rent. He makes the reasonable point that he is not clear how much longer he can survive like that. He has £100,000 of VAT debt, and I assume—I make this plea now—that we will roll over the deferrals on that. However, we need to find a way to make sure that people from the private sector who have invested and are helping to level up are not left behind.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the VAT cut on hospitality does not apply to alcohol, so businesses that are able to open are struggling. If they are open, their fixed costs are the same whether single households or multiple households are allowed to visit, and when they are closed, they have fixed costs that they have to cover. We need to make sure they are there when we get through this, and they need support.

[Aaron Bell]

As usual, my right hon. Friend is right. We need to find a proportionate measure. There are lots and lots of hard choices; the pandemic has meant choosing between one bad option and another throughout. I do not envy the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary the choices they have had to make, and I will be supporting the Government today. I will not get to give my speech in the main Chamber, because I am No. 105 on the call list and I think they have reached about No. 30, so I will make that point now.

I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also has hard choices to make. It is not as simple as saying that we should give everybody a turnover and make them whole, because that is taxpayers’ money, too, and we need to be realistic about how we use it. However, the support has to be proportionate to the damage that those places are suffering.

I will briefly talk about a couple of other areas in which we could level up. I want to hear more from the Minister, when he sums up, about what the new £4 billion levelling-up fund will do. I welcome that, and I would like it to be extended to local areas. I do not know what “local areas” means in the guidance. Does it go down as low as parish or town councils? I spoke to Audley Rotary Club last week. Audley is a mining village and it is not included in the Future High Streets fund because it is not part of the town centre, but the mining villages further out, such as Audley and Bignall End, need levelling up, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned the potential 5G pilot, and I want to put a word in for that. All 12 Staffordshire MPs wrote to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about that. Most of all, I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South about public transport. Newcastle-under-Lyme is one of the largest towns in the country without a railway station of its own. We would like a lot more to be done about buses, as we said in this place at the start of this year in my first ever Westminster Hall debate.

In the longer term, we would love to put a metro proposition together, and we would like some help with that from either the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the Department for Transport. Too many local authorities that need levelling up do not have the experience necessary to put the bids together, because they have not had this funding for years. We need help so that we can put the best-quality bids together and get the levelling up that our communities deserve.

I want to briefly mention culture. Newcastle-under-Lyme is proud of its culture and history. We are the birthplace of Philip Astley, the founder of the modern circus, and hopefully our town deal will do some work around that. The New Vic, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central was kind enough to mention, had a fantastic restoration during covid, which turned out to be exceptionally well timed. I went along to the relaunch event, “Ghostlight”, which was socially distanced and very good, although I have so much sympathy for the theatre, which cannot put on its Christmas performance this year.

I had better wrap up, otherwise I will be talking my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North out of this debate altogether. Thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for letting me make these points about the importance of levelling up for north Staffordshire and all our communities.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before I call Jonathan Gullis, may I ask you to finish by 3.38 pm if possible, to give the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson and Mr Brereton an opportunity to respond briefly?

Covid-19: Funding for Local Authorities

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, especially with such kind strictures on the time limits. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing the debate, and to all Members who have spoken so far, all of whom clearly care very much about their communities. This debate should be conducted in a cross-party spirit, and I am sure that the Minister will respond in those terms at the end.

These are extraordinary circumstances. There has actually been an extraordinary response from central Government in terms of the amount of money going to councils, but there has, more than ever, been some extraordinary leadership in local councils. I mean not only the leadership of the councils but the people carrying out their jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) mentioned. Everybody on the frontline has shown leadership in responding to the awful circumstances we are in.

To give the view from Staffordshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council—a district council—and Staffordshire County Council told me that, by and large, they have had adequate funding from central Government to make up their covid-related losses. That funding has been timely, which they really praised. The Government acted quickly and allowed them to plan ahead, although I recognise what my hon. Friend says about those 5 pm press conferences, which definitely necessitated some late nights. It would be helpful if that was not repeated.

Simon Tagg, leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, says that the Government have listened and given funding to cover the shortfall across council budgets on homelessness, business support and leisure services. That is hugely welcome. Staffordshire County Council has had two leaders during this time, Councillor Philip Atkins and Councillor Alan White, both fine public servants. They estimate that, all in, they have received around £83 million this year in various grants from central Government. They reckon they will have an overall overspend of about £2 million, partly due to delayed cost savings, in addition to some lost income from council tax and business rates.

My councils of course have some asks of the Minister, and it would be remiss of me not to mention them. A lot are about collection fund losses. The Government have promised to bring forward proposals to share collection fund losses where councils will not get as much council tax and business rates in. I have been asked to ask the Minister to ensure that the Government will honour that promise and bring that forward as soon as possible, so that those councils can have some certainty in the year ahead. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council would like more funding to cover the cost of council tax support for people claiming benefits. It expects a big increase in that bill when furlough finishes. Staffordshire County Council highlights long-term concerns around social care and the overall funding quantum for local government. It is essential that they have certainty, so that they can do all they can to help the economy get back on its feet and, of course, to level up.

North Staffordshire is one of the principal targets of levelling up in this country. We have had a lot of support from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I look forward to our future high streets fund announcement and our town deal bid, both of which are coming soon. Councils need certainty about their underlying funding; otherwise, they may be forced to make cuts to the universal services that many people rely on.

I again thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for securing this debate. I thank everybody in Staffordshire, including the leadership, the chief executives—Martin Hamilton and John Henderson—and everybody who has done their part to get us through this pandemic. I look forward to the Minister responding to my points.

Towns Fund

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Absolutely not.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers so far and, indeed, for giving Newcastle-under-Lyme a shout-out in his initial answer. The £1 million we have had so far has been put to good use. We also have the future high streets funding and the rest of our town deal bid to come. That will represent more investment in Newcastle-under-Lyme than it had in 100 years of Labour MPs and many Labour Governments during that time.

I have to tell the Secretary of State, however, that the coronavirus pandemic is having a lasting effect on our town centre. Many retail units are closing and seem unlikely to reopen. Does he agree that this pandemic in fact presents an opportunity to rethink our town centres and, particularly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to ensure that they thrive, by repurposing retail space into, potentially, office or residential space?

[Robert Jenrick]

I should say, just to clarify my answer to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), because he seemed confused by it, that the point I was making was that absolutely, his bid will be treated with all fairness and I hope it is successful.

With respect to my hon. Friend’s question, Newcastle-under-Lyme is a town that I know very well and I can see the great proposals coming forward there. He makes the same very important point that a number of colleagues have made today—namely, that covid will accelerate market forces in our towns and city centres. It will make investment of this kind more important than ever and even more prescient than when these funds were created. I hope that they will be a shot in the arm—a boost of confidence—for communities as they begin to recover from the covid pandemic, and that they will help them to adapt and evolve, turning empty shops into homes, and beautiful buildings back to the uses that they were made for.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

This Bill is shameful and the Conservative party is shameless. The Bill is misconceived, ill-advised and designed to wholly override any notion of devolution. The Welsh Government have described it as

“an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

The Bill seeks to break international law and to break devolution.

One of the many vexing things about this brazen, law-breaking, power-grab Bill is when the UK Government try to suggest it is not so or that there is nothing to be concerned about, as if we should just disregard clear, undisputable facts. Just look at clause 46: it is a mucky muckle power grab. Plainly, the UK Government either know perfectly well what they are doing and they are intent on breaking international law, undermining the Northern Ireland protocol and stripping powers away from the devolved Administrations, or they are utterly and shamefully incompetent. It has to be one of those two things, or perhaps both. What it cannot be, and what is frankly an insult to the intelligence of people watching this charade in Scotland, is the nonsense that some Conservative Members engage in when they suggest that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, their UK Government is somehow exceptionally above international law. That is the dangerous exceptionalism that sits at the heart of the Bill and that is what lies behind their plans to break international law and ride roughshod over the devolved Governments.

We will all suffer for it if the UK Government have their way, because—look at clause 48—these plans open the door to their race to the bottom, to bargain-basement Britain. That is regardless of the many voices calling for them to change tack—the Scottish Government, the Welsh Synod, the Northern Irish Assembly, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the NFUS, the STUC, former Prime Ministers and the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I could go on all night. In the eyes of the UK Government, they are all wrong. I am afraid that is not credible. This Trumpian truth-twisting is all part of their plan to ride roughshod over the law, the Sewel convention and Scotland’s ability to make the decisions that are right for the people of Scotland. Of course, that holds for Wales and it holds for Northern Ireland, as we heard last week when we were discussing part 5.

I have not agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on many occasions, but she hit the nail on the head last week when she called the UK Government out on their disregard for law and good faith. This UK Government cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on Scotland, on devolution, on standards and on upholding international law. In fact, the Bill shows they cannot be trusted at all. It is no wonder that the Scottish Government are unable to recommend legislative consent.

We were told that we should lead, not leave, that we are a partnership of equals. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this reckless UK Government speak loudly and clearly of the pressing need for Scotland to steer another course as far away from the direction of the UK Government as possible.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), although I fear there is very little common cause between her speech and mine. The internal market is a shared asset, and we all want it to work effectively. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy becomes stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this legislation: to guarantee the continued functioning of that internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK. That is why I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

It is apparent that we need a clear state aid policy that resides in Westminster, because, as much as the SNP likes to pretend this is the English Parliament, all parts of the UK are represented here, and this place is the only place with the legal and moral authority to act on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. Also, our ability to develop trade relations with other countries depends on our having a co-ordinated approach to state aid across our own country, the United Kingdom.

I do not believe that the Bill, or any of the specific provisions in question, undermine our commitment to the Good Friday agreement. Rest assured that those of us on this side of the House remain fully committed to the provisions of that agreement. We will not allow it to be undermined by any possible failure of negotiations, nor by any bad faith interpretations of clauses in the Northern Ireland protocol, and I pay tribute to the speeches from my hon. Friends earlier in the debate.

I will touch on the controversy over the key clauses in part 5: clauses 42, 43 and 45. I am no lawyer, and there are many Members in this House more learned than I am, but it seems to me that international law is breached all the time. The recent actions of the French navy in the channel breached the UN convention on the law of the sea. Where was the pearl clutching from the Opposition Benches then? The German Constitutional Court ruling in May set aside a ruling of the European Court of Justice and brought that international law into question. The European Union itself was only too happy to set aside its own treaties when the stability of its own union was put at risk during the financial crisis.

It seems, as my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), put it earlier, international law is, in fact, a mixture of law and politics; I think he said it was 40% the former and 60% the latter. That does not mean that we should not be mindful of our international reputation, but our friends and allies around the world would not expect us to accept bad faith interpretations of the Northern Ireland protocol. They would not expect us to impose unreasonable restrictions on our own internal sovereignty.

That is why the clauses are in the Bill. They are, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, a safety net in the event of a failure of negotiations. I believe, too, that they strengthen our hand in those negotiations. The people of Newcastle-Under-Lyme expect their representative to stand up for them, but they also expect him to stand up for Britain, and that is what I am doing by backing the Bill.

I do not believe, therefore, that Government amendment 66, which is now incorporated in clause 54, was strictly speaking necessary, though I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), whose amendment inspired it. However, I believe that incorporating that amendment was wise, because by leaving the final decision about these matters in the hands of this Parliament we are making it clear where sovereignty in these matters, and in this country, truly resides.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Every once in a while, a piece of legislation comes that goes to the very heart of our character as a country. The internal market Bill is one such piece of legislation. It goes to the very heart of our economy, our national identity and our constitution. There is no doubt that the legislation is necessary. We need a strong internal market so that businesses can trade freely across the UK’s four nations, which will be vital for our shared prosperity, and we want the Government to get on and deliver what they promised: an oven-ready Brexit deal in place for 1 January, so that we can get on with tackling the coronavirus crisis.

However, whether seen through the prism of the economy, of our national reputation or of our constitution, the Bill is fundamentally flawed. On the economy, it creates the conditions for a race to the bottom. Mutual recognition of standards without common frameworks in place simply opens the back door to hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken becoming the norm.

Internationally, the Bill will severely damage Britain’s standing in the world. The Government have freely and openly confirmed that the Bill will breach international law by overriding elements of the withdrawal agreement signed only nine months ago by the Prime Minister himself. As the Foreign Secretary himself stated in January:

“global Britain is…about continuing to uphold…our heartfelt commitment to the international rule of law…for which we are respected the world over.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 768.]

Our country’s reputation is on the line. Surely, we want to be seen as a trustworthy nation with which other countries can do business in good faith. Surely, we want to strike good trade deals across the world. Surely, we want to be able to stand up to the world’s authoritarian regimes with credibility. I know many Government Members are extremely concerned about the damage the Government are doing to Britain’s standing in the world. I hope that that concern will be reflected in the Division Lobby this evening.

As a Welsh MP who believes passionately in a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom, I am profoundly concerned that the Bill risks the integrity of our Union. Devolution is based on the principle of informed consent, but the UK Government are hellbent on cutting the devolved Administrations out of the conversation. Surely, one of the lessons of the covid crisis is that the overcentralised control freakery of this Government is simply not working. The days of being able to sit behind a desk in Whitehall, pull a lever and expect it to deliver the desired outcomes in places such as Aberavon are over. Modern Government should be built on consultation and co-operation, not top-down diktat. As chair of the all-party group on post-Brexit funding, I am profoundly concerned that this approach will be applied to the shared prosperity fund. There is a risk that the UK will undertake both a money grab and a power grab from the devolved nations with regard to how that development funding will be spent. Further still, we hear that the Government plan to funnel money directly into Conservative seats in what can only be described as the worst sort of pork-barrel politics.

The Prime Minister loves to present himself as a Churchillian patriot, but is it patriotic to divide our country? Is it patriotic to tarnish our country’s reputation overseas? Is it patriotic to undermine our economy and the standards we hold so dear? Absolutely not. The key elements of the Bill are holding our country back. We need competence and consensus, not bluster and bullying. We need to deliver on this deal and move forward.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith]

Exactly. I fully agree with my hon. Friend, who has been fighting for farmers in his constituency for many years. New clause 5, for which I hope we have some support from those on the Opposition Benches, is specifically about the maintenance of minimum standards, so I hope that when the House comes to consider it, there will be support for it. If we are scaremongering about lowering standards, then Members can support the amendments to make it explicit in the Bill that standards will not be lowered. Prove us wrong. By refusing to back the amendments, we will be proven right.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent speech in favour of independence, basically. I thank him for his lectures on constitutional history and I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her lectures on the Sewel convention, but those predate us getting into the internal market in the first place. The Bill seeks to restore the status quo ante in this country, which is an internal market. It is not a power grab. The amendments are a grab for independence, and I understand why they have been tabled, but that is what is going on here. The hon. Gentleman is trying to further independence through these amendments. I completely understand that, but that is why we will reject them.

[Alyn Smith]

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He accuses me of promoting the case for independence and, indeed, I do promote the case for independence, but Government Members need to be in no doubt that a substantial element of the population of Scotland is deeply disgusted by this process. They are frustrated by the disrespect that Scotland has been shown since the EU referendum, where we rejected Brexit significantly, but were told to shut up and get back in our box. Just after the 2014 referendum, we were told we were a partnership of equals, but we were then told immediately afterwards that we are part of the United Kingdom, not a partner in it. The Bill makes that explicit in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

I won Stirling from the Conservatives with 51% of the vote precisely because I am in favour of the rule of law and international solidarity, as demonstrated by the multilateral, binding, voluntary solidarity of the European Union. That is a structure we are comfortable with and a structure we are very comfortable with Scotland fitting into in the future. Dare I say it, but Scotland has a far sharper sense of its place in the world than the UK does right now.

This Bill seeks to cement power in the hands of the unelected, aided and abetted by people who—with good intentions, I do not doubt—are facilitating that power grab, but in so doing are upending the principle of devolution that is dear to the hearts of the people of Scotland and Wales and is deeply sensitive in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Gentleman says I am promoting the cause of independence, damn right I am, but I am also defending constitutional probity in the rule of law within the United Kingdom. Perhaps Government Members need to think a little harder about what they are being whipped through the Lobby to support.

To conclude, our amendments seek in good faith to insert into this package, which we dislike so much, the principle of consent of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Failing that, we seek to exempt Scotland from this madness. I urge Members to support the rule of law and democracy within these islands.

Planning Process: Probity

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend has been absolutely clear: the applicants raised the issue of Westferry with him at that dinner, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he could not discuss planning matters and would not discuss that planning matter, and the issue was closed. I have no idea what Mr Desmond asked for at that dinner, where he wished to be seated or who made the decision on where he was seated, because Ministers in my Department and others do not know what donations or funds are being spent by donors on political parties. There is a firewall, quite properly, between the two.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I completely agree on the need to maintain public trust in the planning process. I have the honour to represent the historic market town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and one concern people have is that our historic buildings and heritage are not always protected in the planning process. What steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that buildings of importance, such as the Guildhall in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are protected in the planning system, in the public interest?

[Mr Speaker]

I liked the last bit of the question.

Planning for the Future

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We absolutely we want to have a brownfield-first policy—that is at the heart of everything that we are trying to do in this policy area. It is why we have created the brownfield fund, which is available to those councils that really want to seize this opportunity to unlock those parcels of land. It is also driving our interest in some of the planning freedoms, such as the ability for a small builder or an entrepreneur to use the new permitted development rights that I have announced this week to purchase a disused office building with the knowledge and certainty that he or she can knock that down and turn it into good-quality housing as quickly as possible. We do not want to see the needless ruination of the countryside—we all want to see it preserved for future generations—but we have to balance that with ensuring that homes are available for the next generation in those parts of the country where people really want to live.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I heard what the Secretary of State said about the importance of completing local plans. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is working together with our friends and neighbours in Stoke-on-Trent on a joint local plan. Will the Secretary of State assure me and them that as we get Britain building homes, the Government will also invest in infrastructure such as the schools, roads, public transport and GP services that are needed to support new developments?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am pleased to hear that Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent are working closely together—I am not surprised now that both are represented exclusively by Conservative MPs for the first time. We absolutely want to ensure more investment in infrastructure. As we set out in our manifesto, the infrastructure should flow first. We need well-planned, modern communities, which is why we have invested through the housing infrastructure fund. We will be succeeding that with a new, larger and longer-term single housing infrastructure fund, which will ensure that at least £10 billion is available for local areas to plan for the future and ensure that the roads, GP surgeries, utilities and hospitals are there to meet people’s demands.

Criminal Law

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). This debate is about public confidence not just in our judicial system, but in our political system, which will come to in a little bit.

The principal purposes of sentencing are quite well understood by most of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) touched on them—and I believe that the public support them. On protection, increased sentences for the worst offenders will increase public protection. On deterrence, it remains to be seen, but one would have thought that if someone knows that they will go to prison for longer, they will be appropriately further deterred. On rehabilitation, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) made an important intervention earlier, this measure provides more time for rehabilitation. It is important that we do a better job than perhaps we have been doing, but it can only be a good thing to allow more time for support and rehabilitation for people who are not only some of the worst offenders, but perhaps have some of the worst reasons for being so. These measures also offer more of a chance for people to pay reparations, although I appreciate that can happen in the community, too. Last but not least, punishment is another important part of sentencing, and there is nothing unworthy in that, because it is fundamental to justice.

However, my experience on the doorstep in Newcastle-under-Lyme is that most people do not support automatic early release for the worst offenders—certainly not at half-time, as at present, or at even less than half-time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) mentioned. People are cynical about it. They look at the length of a sentence and say, “Well, it won’t be anywhere near that. They will probably be out in 18 months”, or whatever. Our manifesto commitment was therefore actually very popular and will restore some balance to the different purposes of sentencing and, dare I say, some good old-fashioned common sense.

The wheels of justice can often turn slowly. Likewise, this place rightly takes its time when it has complex Bills to consider—well, at least most of the time—but my constituents will welcome the fact that, with these statutory instruments, we have been able to act quickly to deliver on a clear promise that we made a couple of months ago. That swift action will in turn strengthen public confidence not just in our judicial system, which is what we are talking about today, but in our political system. People will know that we can pull our finger out when there is clear and pressing demand from public belief that the present system is unsatisfactory. In addition to the public in general, the change will strengthen victims’ confidence. The Victims’ Commissioner said:

“I welcome any move to make sentencing more transparent”.

Victims’ rights campaigner Harry Fletcher has said that the previous system

“removed the incentive to comply and reform. Increasing time served but encouraging good behaviour restores the balance for victims.”

Balance is very important.

We still have more to do. The sentencing Bill, the foreign national offenders Bill and many other Bills in the Queen’s Speech will form a welcome and more comprehensive package than what we are discussing today, but this is a swift and impressive first step, so I commend these statutory instruments to the House.

Assisted Dying Law

Aaron Bell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate.

The status quo is not sustainable. It puts the Director of Public Prosecutions in a difficult position, and that is no way for such an important matter to be handled in law. It is for us to make the law. Whatever we do, we must do something, because the current situation is not sustainable. It is not fair on family members who are investigated and left on bail. The evidence is that the public are willing to look again, and are willing us to look again, for the reasons already given, including compassion and dignity. I do not think there is much dignity in what people have to go through to obtain an assisted death. Another reason, perhaps, is our changing attitudes to faith. There are more people without faith or whose faith is less orthodox than it was in the past.

Like the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), I am new here. Hon. Members who have taken part in previous debates have told me that those debates changed their minds. I recognise that exact safeguards will be difficult to agree and that if a Bill is introduced, we would have to consider them all carefully.

To conclude, although I am instinctively predisposed towards a possible change in the law, I remain open-minded. Therefore I welcome a Government-backed inquiry as an important first step.