Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on antisemitism, and on our love for—and on standing with—the Jewish people, both across the globe and here in the United Kingdom. Many of them want nothing more than peace and security for themselves and their families, and we will continue to work with them. I agree with his remarks and the sentiment behind them.

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

I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments about the need for all sides to work towards a two-state solution. Does he therefore understand the wider concern at the Israeli Prime Minister saying repeatedly in recent weeks that he does not support a two-state solution, either now or in the future? Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the frustration and anger that that creates among many Palestinians, particularly young ones, and that it breeds a climate in which hostility and violence are likely to increase rather than decrease? What can he do to change the Israeli Prime Minister’s mind?

Debate on the Address

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

After nine years on the Opposition Benches, it is a disorientating experience to find myself on the Government Benches, and things just got a little more topsy-turvy when I found I was speaking after the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I do not think that has ever happened before, but it gives me an opportunity to thank him for his friendship and to let new Members know that in this House they will find friends in perhaps the most unlikely places. I thank my hon. Friend for his friendship and support, and I know in that I speak for many on the Government side.

This is my first opportunity to give a substantive speech as the new Member for Lancaster and Wyre, as my constituency underwent some significant boundary changes at this election. I will break with convention slightly by paying tribute to the MP I have replaced, in the sense that most of my constituency was represented in the previous Parliament by Ben Wallace. He had served as an MP in Lancashire since the 2005 general election, first for Lancaster and Wyre and latterly for Wyre and Preston North. Ben was the MP elected in the first general election I voted in, in Lancaster and Wyre. I confess that I did not vote for the winning candidate, but his assiduous service should be noted, especially his service to the country in his role as Secretary of State for Defence.

This is also an opportunity to acknowledge the change to our electoral map at the general election. The country voted very clearly for change. I am excited to see much of the content in the King’s Speech, particularly when it comes to getting Britain building through planning reform. I was pleased to hear talk about both infrastructure and housing; it is clear to me that when we build housing it has to go with infrastructure. I hear loud and clear from my constituents along the A6 corridor, particularly around the Garstang area, that building new houses without infrastructure puts more pressure on our public services, GP surgeries and school places.

I was also pleased to see in the King’s Speech that local leaders will be allowed to take control of local bus services. This week, Stagecoach, which runs the bus services in my community, has increased the price of the under-19s DayRider, which has been met with quite a lot of response, shall we say, from my constituents—not only those attending schools and colleges, but their parents, who are often the ones picking up the tab for what is a very expensive and often unreliable service.

As a north-west MP, I am served on the west coast main line by a train company called Avanti, so believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, bringing rail back into public ownership is something my constituents welcomed. I heard loud and clear on the campaign trail that Avanti is not a fit company to be running a so-called train service down the west coast of our country, right the way from Glasgow into London Euston. It let passengers down on a regular basis and I think it knows its time is up.

Some of my youngest constituents are running campaigns at the moment on sewage dumping. We know that Ofwat needs to have more teeth and more powers to regulate the water companies. I know that some of my youngest constituents will be very pleased to see that part of the King’s Speech.

I turn now to the point about strengthening the integrity of elections to encourage wider participation in the democratic process. In the last Parliament I had the privilege of being the spokesperson for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, so you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if this turns into something of a hobby-horse of mine. I am deeply concerned about the state of our democracy and look forward to playing a full role from the Back Benches, supporting the Government in improving the integrity of our electoral process.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that 52% turnout nationally at a general election should concern every one of us. In Lancaster and Wyre it was 58%, but I take no comfort from the fact that we are marginally higher than the national average. That is what keeps me up at night. We need to engage people in our democracy, because the alternatives are unthinkable. I support the idea of automatic voter registration.

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

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee published a report in the last Parliament proposing exactly that. We went to look at the system in Canada, which gets near to 97% or 98% registration accuracy. Some 8 million people could not vote in our election because they were not on the electoral register. We need to address that.

[Cat Smith]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work of his Committee in the last Parliament, and I urge the Government Front Benchers to heed that report. Millions of people are missing from our electoral roll. If Members are concerned about the 52% turnout at the general election, they will be even more concerned to note that that figure is probably much lower because our electoral roll lacks accuracy.

However, that is not all. We need to look again at the ID requirements. During the general election, we all came across people who thought that they could not vote because they did not have ID and were not aware of the voter authority certificate. A conversation that I had in Skerton in my constituency stands out to me. A gentleman who had voted in every general election since the 1970s said: “I don’t have ID, so I can’t vote now.” He had been totally unaware that the voter authority certificate was an option, and it was far too late to apply for one a few days from polling day. That was replicated up and down the country. If we are concerned about and want to increase turnout at elections, we need to fix that. Personally, I think that that means scrapping the entire scheme, which was always a solution to a problem that did not exist, but adding more forms of ID, or including polling cards, would make it so much easier for people to take part in our democracy.

I have heard a lot from constituents who have looked at the results of the general election and raised questions about proportional representation. In the last Parliament, the Government changed the voting system for electing police and crime commissioners from the alternative vote to first past the post, and they did so in a statutory instrument Committee. I do not think that is an appropriate way to go about changing our voting systems. The public should be involved in that conversation. The general election results have led to a lot of conversations in Lancashire with people who feel that the first-past-the-post system is regressive and that we can find more progressive ways of improving our voting systems.

The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement makes the electorate question the commission’s independence. If we want to build trust and faith in our democracy, the public need to believe that the commission is independent and empowered to hold political parties and candidates to account for our conduct in these things, and that it can take on new challenges, including the intimidation of candidates, which has already been mentioned. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who is no longer in her place.

Finally, if I may, I will squeeze in an ask of the Government on sodium valproate. There are many victims of that scandal, and they are waiting for a compensation scheme. That should have happened under the last Government, but the chaos that we have had for the past 14 years meant that it did not. I hope that those who have campaigned long and hard over many years for justice following that scandal will get it under the Labour Government.

I recognise that the Government have hit the ground running. The King’s Speech is full of legislation that I look forward to supporting to bring about the change that the country voted for.

--- Later in debate ---

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

First, I thank my constituents in Sheffield South East for re-electing me for the ninth time. I sort of remember making my maiden speech many years ago along with the challenges that posed and the nervousness, so I pay great credit to all colleagues on both sides of the House who have done that today so ably and so well.

I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who spoke earlier, that there are now six Labour MPs in Sheffield. I am also reminded that, of those six Labour MPs, I am the last man standing. That is the change of balance in the House, with five women MPs for the city, and that is absolutely great. We will always continue to work together as colleagues on behalf of our city. There have been comments about the famous Sheffield tea room meetings where we come together once a month—that is quite famous.

I want to draw particular attention to issues that were raised when I was Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament. There are so many issues in the King’s Speech that I would like to mention, but the first is the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes. Housing has been a passion of mine ever since I was chair of the housing committee in Sheffield back in the 1980s. Clearly, we have major problems—all MPs can refer to people without homes in their constituency, or who are living with in-laws, in shared accommodation, or inadequate homes with families living in upper-floor flats.

We need to get Britain building again—it is good for the homes that people need and it is good for growth. It is an important part of our growth agenda. It is good that we will make local authorities set targets to be achieved in their local plans—not advisory ones as the previous Government did under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—and it is absolutely right that targets have to be met. However, if we are to build 1.5 million homes, we must recognise that the private sector and private developers will not build them. We will not hit that target without a substantial contribution from councils and housing associations—that is right in terms of the numbers. It is right also to address the housing needs of those who cannot afford to buy, and who need a decent home to rent.

My passion is to get Britain building, but building social housing as well. In trying to achieve that, it is important to draw attention to a particular development in my constituency. It right that we build on brownfield sites as far as we can. The idea that the planning changes that the Government are proposing will somehow mean that central diktat determines where houses are built is not the case. Local plans will still determine where houses are built at local level. The Sheffield local plan gives priority to building around the city centre and in the old industrial areas in my constituency.

The first development, called Attercliffe Waterside, will see up to 1,000 new homes built by a private developer Citu. The first 350 have just been given planning permission—credit to Sheffield city council, the mayor of the combined authority Oliver Coppard, and Homes England. First, the development will not create section 106 funding to help with affordable housing. The mayor will have to put in £4 million to build on a brownfield old industrial site. These sites are more expensive to build on—we must understand that. It is right that we build on them as a priority, but they are more expensive. We need that contribution from the mayor, and he has put it in. Secondly, there will be no social housing on this site, as a purely commercial venture. Homes England has been extremely good; it will provide some subsidy so that a significant number of those homes will be social housing, which a housing association will manage. That is great, but it will cost money.

I hope the Government will listen and work in partnership with the 20 local authorities that have just written to them to ask for a joint agreement on how we build social housing in this country. They are saying, “Look, we are going to have challenges not just about building the homes but about net zero, building safety and decent homes standards. We need the Government’s commitment that the funds will be available to deliver on those homes.” Otherwise, as a Select Committee report said a few months ago, all the money that should be going to build new homes will go on those other priorities, because the first duty of landlords in the social housing sector is to look after their existing homes and tenants. It is important that the Government listen to that and have a long-term clear view of what rent policy will be, because that is where most of the income will come from to fund social house building. It is right that the Government revisit the unfair decision about debt in social housing that was put on councils in the 2010 settlement by the coalition Government, because that burden stops councils from going ahead and doing what many of them want to do. There are issues that I hope the Government respond positively to.

I must mention local authorities. Given my passion for local government and devolution, I welcome what the Prime Minister said about devolution—not just to mayors but to local councils. I welcome his recognition of the current challenges of financing local councils. There have been eight councils with section 114 decisions in the last year. Of those, 19 were given permission to borrow capital in order to fund revenue. That is not sustainable in the long term. Yes, there is a recognition there, but can we really carry on with local government finance based on a council tax system that looks at 1991 valuations and, according to the last Secretary of State Michael Gove, is regressive? I am not sure that a Labour Government can sustain that. I hope for proper discussions with local councils about a new system going forward.

Finally, on my own constituency and going for growth, I want to see early decisions about small modular reactors. We can build those in Sheffield: Sheffield Forgemasters is in my constituency. Hydrogen should be supported—that is in the proposed legislation—and ITM Power, a major hydrogen company, is in my constituency. I welcome the work being done with Boeing by the University of Sheffield on sustainable aviation fuels. Boeing is now developing research into light-bodied frames for aircraft. Again, that is a contribution to jobs, helping to equalise wages and living standards in my constituency, and to net zero. I hope to see those measures come forward as a matter of urgency.