Paris Agreement on Climate Change
Debate between Bob Stewart and Natascha Engel(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart
When you used the word “export”, did you mean exporting electricity or exporting the idea and the technology?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking through the Chair—when he says “you”, he is addressing the Chair.
Sale of Park Homes
Debate between Bob Stewart and Natascha Engel
Natascha Engel
We hope it will address the problem. One of the really big issues previously was that there was nobody to enforce the licence unless it was a matter for the police, in which case it was a criminal matter and out of everybody’s hands anyway. We hope it will be a very important change, but certainly in North East Derbyshire the legislation needs to settle down. The 10% flat rate seems enormously unfair when site owners are saying it is absolutely essential for the maintenance of the park and no work is ever done. On the contrary, residents are doing all the work and having to pay out for everything.
Bob Stewart
This is the first I have learned of the problem. I have listened to the debate and I am absolutely appalled. The 10% fee sounds like daylight robbery. It is fair to charge a rent for a pitch; it is grossly unfair to charge 10% for nothing. It is robbery.
Natascha Engel
Absolutely; in fact Rick and Bill, from one of the park home sites in North East Derbyshire, made a T-shirt with “Daylight Robbery” on it, which is selling like hot cakes. It is a funny point, but about something serious. This is daylight robbery from people who cannot afford it. That is the really awful aspect. It is exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes: it feels such a terrible injustice that people pay out and get absolutely nothing in return.
I have mentioned this before in a debate, but it is also interesting to remember that when park home sites first started, the type of people who owned them had a social conscience. Part of the reason why utilities are bought in bulk now is that the site owners used to do that and then pass on the savings to the residents. Now the absolute reverse is true, certainly in many of the sites in my constituency, where although utilities are bought in bulk, everything is completely un-transparent. No one can see what they have used or how much money is being charged, and the site owners tend to add a little administration fee, on top of the pitch fees, on which a lot of them are making a disgusting amount of profit. That really should not be allowed, and it is also something that should be taken into the calculations.
As we have said before, what we are asking for is very reasonable: a review of just one thing that was not included in the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Waveney. That would also be an opportunity for those who disagree with us to make their case. The most interesting thing in the speech by the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was the fact that the evidence relied on, certainly in the consultation for the private Member’s Bill and under the Labour Government, is from previous research that has never really been updated. As the sector is now much more organised, the people taking part in consultations are ever increasing in number and, thanks to Sonia McColl, have a proper focal point. I therefore urge the Minister and the shadow Minister—the Minister in what I hope will be an incoming Labour Government—to commit to having a review, simply in recognition of the fact that there is a problem. It is not a problem for the site owners, but it is for those who live on the sites.
Transparency and clarity are enormously important. Under the last Labour Government, a regulation was proposed to make any changes clearer and to require site owners to make it clear to those buying park homes that they would face not only pitch fees and utilities bills but the 10% charge at the end their time. That should have been a requirement, but unfortunately it was never implemented. It is all there in the Department; perhaps that regulation needs to be brushed down, so that we can have a look at it before the general election.
As I have said, we do not want to deny site owners a living; it is just that, certainly from anecdotal evidence and the kinds of cars they drive, we can make quite a safe assumption that the profits they are making, on the backs of vulnerable people, are extremely high. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to have another look at this extortionate commission of 10%. The right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned this, but it would also be a good idea for the review to look at minimum maintenance standards on site, so that if people are paying 10%, the site owner has to commit in return to maintenance up to a certain standard and within a certain timeframe. That would go some way to addressing the injustice that people feel. We could look at that in the review, and there would then at least be a proper justification for the site owners to take that 10%. At the moment, it is daylight robbery; people are getting nothing in return for it.
It was interesting to hear about park home sites that were council-owned. Bramley Park site in my constituency used to be council-owned and is now in private ownership. It does not charge the minimum 10%. The same owner charges the 10% at another park site in the constituency, but he seems to manage perfectly well without charging it on the former council-owned site. Perhaps we could look further into that in the review and assess the profit consequences to a park home site owner if the 10% commission were to be abolished.
Some people think of these mobile homes as caravans, but they are not mobile; they are entirely static. As mentioned earlier, there is one set of rules for people who live in bricks-and-mortar homes, and a different set of rules for these static caravans. Yet these are people’s homes; it is where they live. It is where many of them will live for the rest of their lives. Some have quite a high value. Some of these homes go for between £150,000 and £200,000—often reflecting how beautiful they are. We are not talking about peanuts.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Bob Stewart and Natascha Engel(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want to read out something that the Leader of the House said about introducing legislation on lobbying in an Opposition day debate in June:
“The other way forward is to be clear about the standards expected, based on the Nolan principles, and to ensure that all those who exercise responsibilities—and all those who seek to influence them—are subject to the necessary transparency in their actions and contacts, and held accountable for their actions, so that we can see who is doing what, and why. For those who seek to influence the political system without the necessary transparency, there will be clear sanctions available.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 175.]
That is beautifully put, but it is not what the Bill does. If it were what the Bill did, most hon. Members would support it.
On lobbying, we all agree that transparency is absolutely important, but so is the need to raise standards in the lobbying industry and to make those rules apply equally and fairly to everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) just pointed out, 97% of lobbying activity will not be captured by the Bill. The way to improve things would be to ensure that everyone is captured by it and that they abide by an industry code, to make sure that we raise standards and that they apply to absolutely everyone.
The worrying thing is that, instead of doing that, the Bill will limit what civil society organisations do in campaigning on policies in which they have a legitimate interest, because Governments of any persuasion do not like effective campaigns against them. Whether from business, charities or trade unions, the Government find them embarrassing, and they would much rather silence them. Sometimes, as with the Bill, a Government need to be embarrassed into not doing what is wrong.
For instance, we might not like what Guido writes about us on his blog, but we should fight any legislation that would curb his ability to do so. It is salient to think how many people are members of the organisation, 38 Degrees: 1.7 million members subscribe to 38 Degrees. For us as political organisations, we collectively do not add up to that many people. For us to dismiss 38 Degrees as an organisation where people press the send button and something inconveniently pops up in our inbox is to dismiss those people who we represent in our constituencies who are legitimately engaged in political activity at a time when we are complaining about how people are disengaging from the political process.
We need to consider something that Len McCluskey said recently: the combined membership of Unite also adds up to far more than the combined memberships of all registered political parties, and they pay an awful lot more to be members of Unite.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As I understand it, 38 Degrees was invited to be briefed by the Government on the Bill but did not turn up, which is sad.
Natascha Engel
I do not see the relevance of 38 Degrees not turning up to a briefing, which would almost certainly have been largely pointless as the Bill would gag the activities that 38 Degrees legitimately wants to undertake in the run-up to a general election.