Parking Regulation
Clive Efford Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered parking regulation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his support in securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) —my good friend and constituency neighbour—for their tireless work in challenging the rip-off fines that private parking companies across the country are charging our constituents day in, day out. Irrespective of industry pressure, we will continue to fight on behalf of our constituents who face unfair parking fines. I also thank the RAC and the AA for their ongoing work to advocate for drivers across the country.
I will keep my contribution brief to allow other Members to speak for their constituents. I know that MPs are here from across the country and across party lines because their constituents, like mine in Derby, are fed up. They are fed up of wrestling with a faulty payment app or an out-of-order ticket machine only to find that they will still be fined. They are fed up of the hassle of appealing a parking fine that should never have been issued in the first place. Most of all, they are fed up of feeling scammed by private parking companies that are unfairly pocketing their hard-earned cash.
In my constituency, the Copeland Street car park is a repeat offender, ripping constituents off—both workers and visitors—with unfair fines. Do not just take my word for it; listen to my constituent who fell foul of unclear signage while doing jury service at Derby Crown court. He will now have to defend himself in court against fines in excess of £1,000. Another of my constituents is a member of Derby’s community with hearing difficulties, who uses the car park to attend essential hearing appointments. After receiving an unfair fine, he is understandably worried that this will happen again and again.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Please refrain from mentioning any matter that may be sub judice.
Baggy Shanker
Another resident contacted me and said:
“I’ll probably just pay the fine without contesting it, because the hassle of appealing would be too much.”
The data shows us that those people are sadly far from alone. Although almost one in two motorists who appeals gets their fines cancelled, 80% of private parking fines are paid straight away. A lack of proper regulation has written these companies a blank cheque to collect unfair fines. According to insurance company Churchill’s data, they are on course to make 15.4 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for vehicle records this year. That is a record average of more than 43,000 private parking tickets issued every single day—one every two seconds. Shockingly, 2,700 will be issued during the course of this debate. It is time to say enough is enough and introduce a legally binding code of practice, to put an end to the extortionate fines.
Earlier this year, I wondered why private parking companies introduced a voluntary code of practice, after years of doing everything they could to block a legally binding code of practice being introduced. To nobody’s surprise, the voluntary code goes nowhere near far enough to stand up for drivers and give them the protections they need. The cap on parking charge notices is still too high. The debt recovery fees are still allowed under the industry code. Put simply, they are setting their own rules and marking their own homework, or at best their mates’ homework. That is just not good enough.
Private parking companies need to act with fairness and common sense. To achieve that, we need a robust code of practice put into law, which stands up for drivers and holds these companies to account. Voluntary guidelines are failing drivers. We need clear, enforceable rules that cover signage, the grace period, appeals processes and the use of CCTV. We also need to put an end to the threatening letters that use legal jargon to intimidate people into paying fines, and we need caps on those fines. Ultimately, we need accountability.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s determination to drive up standards across the private parking sector by committing to publishing a statutory code of practice. Today, on behalf of every driver who has faced the nightmare of an unfair fine, I urge the Minister to commit to introducing such a code without any further delays. Most importantly, the emails that flood our inboxes every day show that drivers across the country are willing us to stand up for them. Now it is time for action.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they must bob if they want to speak in this debate. A lot of people want to speak, so if anyone intends to intervene, they should prepare their interventions carefully, because if an intervention is too long I will cut you off.
Martin Wrigley
Absolutely—this is something that they should not have to put up with.
Norma felt bullied into making the payment to avoid threats of escalation. Complaints go into a flawed process: appeals are simply denied, and the supposedly independent appeal system acts as little more than a tick box, with no real opportunity to argue reasons. This is immediately followed by continued threats of enforcement, action and increased costs—and it goes even further than that.
Private parking companies seem to have licence to go much further than any other form of organisation. Why can such companies set up automatic number plate recognition or CCTV, have cameras literally hidden on any old building—often really high on outside walls—to film entire streets and into the houses opposite, and have them running 24/7 with a 360° view using night vision, when councils or the police would never be allowed to do such a thing? Why are private parking companies allowed to use such cameras with no restrictions, especially when councils cannot use them at all for off-street parking, since the Deregulation Act 2015 banned camera use for parking contravention in council car parks?
We urgently need an independent regulator. The public need information on how the camera systems are used and who is recording. We need to ensure that the appeal system is working, and that faulty parking machines are rapidly fixed. We need a cap on the maximum penalty charge that can be issued for contraventions. We need a proportionate and responsible debt recovery process for operators to use for non-payments, and we need responsible behaviour and transparency from the companies operating in this area. Critically, a new regulator will provide a single code of practice, so that all private parking operators follow the same rules, and a single independent appeals process.
In 2010, indiscriminate wheel clamping and towing on private land was described as a licence to print money due to the firms’ rogue conduct. The practice was banned by the local transport Minister, the then Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who said:
“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.”
Rather than the private parking lobby and finance world learning its lesson, it reverted to an industry based on outrageous practices, charges and threatograms. Let us end this situation. I ask the Minister to take urgent action.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit straight away, I am afraid.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Because you have all been so disciplined, and because one Member who had emailed about speaking in the debate is now not planning to do so, I can be a little more flexible with time, but not too much. You have roughly four minutes each from now on.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and other colleagues for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have made contributions illustrating something that is a scandal across the whole country.
I want to highlight how my constituents in Shipley are being ripped off with a number of cases that are impacting both residents and shoppers. I spoke to a constituent who lives at Victoria Mills, a beautiful residential development in the heart of Saltaire. He has been trying to register his vehicle with the company that operates the residents’ car park, BaySentry. It has him down as owning two cars and two spaces, neither of which has the correct registration details, so every time he enters or exits his car park—sometimes two or three times a day—he is issued with a fine. The website is extremely difficult and confusing to use. Although he has been contacting the company, which keeps saying it will respond in three days, he has still had no response. Having clocked up several thousands of pounds in fines owed, he has decided to move out. He knows that other residents threatened with the same sort of penalty notices have paid up because they are too scared, as we have heard today.
Another constituent overstayed slightly at a supermarket car park, but saw that the signage was extremely poor and submitted evidence to that effect. She went down the route of appeal using POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals. That pretends to look like an independent appeals process, but, as we know, these are not independent processes; they are paid for by the parking companies. She has got into dispute with POPLA, which is not progressing her appeal. This is really undermining people’s confidence in parking.
The third case study is that of Susan, who has a happier story. She was shopping at the new Lidl store—she was there 30 minutes before opening time to use the browsing time before the store opened on a Sunday—and she received a fine from Parkingeye. She paid the fine and went to appeal, but got no joy from the company. It turned out that Parkingeye was not up to date with the store opening times, and it should never have fined her as she was not there out of hours. Thanks to my intervention on her behalf, we got a small victory: the cameras were updated and she got her money back.
It should not require the intervention of MPs with these private companies to stop this rip-off Britain. It seems like the companies have a blank cheque and are exploiting law-abiding residents of my constituency and people around the country. I hope the Minister will respond positively to my call and that of colleagues for properly independent regulation and clarity for consumers, and a legally binding code of practice.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace.
This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I call Baggy Shanker to sum up for a couple of minutes. That is not an invitation for a seven-minute speech.
Planning Committees: Reform
Clive Efford Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?
Matthew Pennycook
On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.
Building Safety and Resilience
Clive Efford Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I commend all the maiden speeches that we have heard today: I feel as if I have been on a tour of England following the descriptions of so many constituencies. May I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) about his predecessor, Bob Neill? I now represent part of Bob Neill’s former constituency, and I know from talking to people during the recent general election campaign that he was held in high regard by his constituents. I wish him all the best for the future.
I am sick and tired of coming here and raising the issue of Master Gunner Place in my constituency. It has been in need of remedial work for a very long time, and still nothing has been done. It was built by Countryside Properties, now Vistry Group Ltd, and we understand that it is about to be handed over to a company called Samnas, although that is yet to happen I have written many times to the managing agent, Rendall and Rittner, about issues that have been raised with me by my constituents, but to no avail.
I was approached by one of my constituents who lives in Master Gunner Place. He had tried to sell his property on four occasions; at the final attempt he had one bidder, whose bid he accepted. However, the bidder was refused a mortgage owing to the size of the service charge. The charge for 2022-23 rose by 107% in 2023-24, to £6,100, and such charges are now trapping people in homes they are unable to sell. Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the leaseholders are entitled to demand from the freeholder or the managing agent an explanation of how those charges were arrived at. When the residents of Master Gunner Place asked for that, they were given only partial information, and on several occasions the managing agent failed to meet the requirement to respond within 30 days. In the end, the agent flatly refused to supply the missing information. When my constituent complained to the managing agent, it did not answer; it just got its solicitors to respond and threaten him with a county court judgment. As a result of that, my constituent had no option: because of the terms of the lease, he had to pay up; otherwise, he could have been in default. He ended up paying the service charge, plus nearly £1,250 in legal fees and interest for being two months late with his payment.
The residents tried to mount legal action but, ironically, they feared that if they were to take on the freeholder over the costs, they would risk the freeholder adding the cost of defending the action to their service charges, because of the terms of the lease. They are absolutely trapped in a situation whereby they need the information to be able to legally challenge the freeholder, but the freeholder and the managing agent are withholding the information that is needed to undertake the action. That cannot be a fair situation for the residents to be left in.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also about insurance? I have a constituent in a similar situation who has had to pay £2,500 in insurance costs.
Clive Efford
Yes, insurance costs are driving up service charges. I have heard of 60% increases in service charges that are attributable to insurance costs. Insurance companies are gouging prices and making money on the back of this situation. Given what has brought us to this debate, it is absolutely appalling that they are behaving in that way.
Remedial works are ultimately the responsibility of freeholders, and contributions from leaseholders should be capped. Management companies are obliged to provide the detail of what they intend to spend on such work but, unfortunately, they are withholding that information. The managing agent should not be able to charge residents anything until the information is supplied. The cap should be spread over 10 years, and no more than one tenth of the cost should be charged in any one year. In the absence of the relevant information, leaseholders cannot check whether the charges that are being imposed on them are reasonable. If they do not pay them and they challenge them, they risk being in default of their leases and receiving a letter from solicitors. The reality is that the terms of leases prevent people from being able to get justice.
The outstanding safety work in the block in Master Gunner Place is simply not being done. A survey was done at the end of 2019, and it was clear that the work needed to be done. In the intervening years, none of it has been carried out. The developer, Vistry Group, is supposedly in the process of handing over the freehold to Samnas, but because the legal documents have not been signed, the leaseholders have been left in limbo and are unable to progress any of the work. The leaseholders engaged lawyers to write to the developer in order to get a reply on the scope of the work that needed to be carried out, and they were informed that the work was due to start in August 2024. Here we are in September, and nothing has been done. They still have no idea about what work is in scope or what contribution the residents will have to make. There are three blocks involved in the development and, to date, none of them has had any of the remedial work done.
It is now time to draw a line under all this. It has gone on for too long. We know that the work needs to be done, we know who is responsible for it and we should not be allowing them to drag their feet any more. It is time for the remediation acceleration scheme to put a rocket under those developers and freeholders. We should be ensuring that they carry out this work, and that if they refuse to do so, they are fined. Only fines will make these people see reason; it is only if they are hit financially that they will change their ways. The remediation acceleration scheme must also include compensation for leaseholders for all the unreasonable charges they have been forced to pay because the management companies and the freeholders have withheld the information needed to ensure accurate fees and charges and that the cap is being properly applied. Where those companies have not done that, we should be making sure that they are fined.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Melanie Ward to make her maiden speech.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes some very important points about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which I shall address shortly. On his request to meet me, let me say that I am always happy to accept such invitations. As I am the Minister with lead responsibility for resilience, it may be better if my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for building safety takes that meeting. She is very keen to meet colleagues to discuss what support we can offer as a Government.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) may be a proud islander, but I can detect a Nottinghamshire accent from 10 paces—watching “Sherwood” makes my ears go. I know that he is a proud islander, but, like his predecessor, he has that connection with Nottinghamshire. He also has the accolade of being the first chip shop owner to enter Parliament. That again is a very good inducement to get colleagues, and perhaps Ministers, to visit him. We do recognise that life is different on the island, and, as a result, some of the challenges are different. We in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are ready to support him in his work in that space.
I move on to the contributions of colleagues who were not making their maiden speech. That is probably well timed because, judging by the faces behind me, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is coming to the end of his time as Select Committee Chair. He has shown such incredible leadership; he is a great parliamentarian, and has always been such a good and kind friend to me. I think it is safe to say that Ministers who have been before his Committee have found him tough and hard, but also very fair. He is also a very kind man. His service has been extraordinary.
Let me mention some of the points that my hon. Friend made. He talked about what help can be given to residents who wish to legally challenge recalcitrant owners and developers. Regulators have powers to act against such owners, and we expect them to do so. Our Department is responsible for holding to account developers who have signed the developer remediation contract, so if residents are concerned about the progress of remediation of their building, they should contact the regulator. If they are concerned about the progress of developer-led remediation, they should contact the Department. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Clive Efford
I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the example that I gave earlier of a management agency not giving the information to leaseholders to check whether they were being charged the right amount of money or even to seek legal redress. There seems to be no power to force those agencies to give that information.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Efford Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I am sure the right hon. Lady is very, very keen that all sorts of matters are investigated properly by independent figures who can be trusted, but in the Tees Valley Ben Houchen has done more than any other Metro Mayor to bring jobs and investment into his region. The thousands of jobs created in Teesworks stand in stark contrast to Labour’s failure, from London to Liverpool, to bring in the jobs required. Andy Street, I should reinforce, is the single most successful Mayor in the country. That is why both Andy and Ben will be re-elected on 2 May, alongside Conservative Mayors in York and North Yorkshire, the East Midlands and, of course, London.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
No qualifying leaseholder in a building above 11 metres in England will be liable for cladding remediation costs. Where we are able to do so and where they still exist, we are making those who cause these issues pay to resolve them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In my constituency, residents are asking for transparency in their service charges. They are fearful that they are being charged for surveys for fire remediation work, which is the responsibility of the developer and not the people who live in the flats and who are not the cause of those problems. What will the Government do for people in Master Gunner Place or Grove Place in my constituency, where people are asking questions but not getting answers on why they are paying these excessive charges? In one case, there was a 107% increase in the service charge. The Government are making all the right noises, but I do not see much result at the sharp end for my constituents.
Lee Rowley
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely vital there is transparency in how, when and why leaseholders are being charged. That is why we have done one thing and been doing another thing in the past few weeks alone. Last week, on the new building safety approach for high-rise buildings, we were very clear in a joint letter about highlighting the importance of temperate remuneration and cost. Secondly, we need to continue to bring forward the reforms in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which will see a transformation in transparency on service charges. The Government brought that Bill forward and it will come through as soon as the other place has concluded its observations.
Building Safety
Clive Efford Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the question. On my hon. Friend’s first point, there are 11 buildings that have not started or finished their ACM remediation. One is not occupied. Of the remaining 10, work will commence on two in the next few weeks. Eight buildings will be remediated at a further date, and the remaining two have enforcement action being taken by the relevant authorities. Although I would like the number to go down to zero at the earliest possible opportunity, the situation is better than it was when we provided the update in October, and I expect the number to continue to move on a positive trajectory in the months and weeks ahead.
On my hon. Friend’s point about the 4,000 buildings that are being reviewed, we provided a further 1,000 potential leads to Homes England, which is leading on the cladding safety scheme, a number of months ago. A significant number were found to not require any remediation. Although I cannot comment on where the 4,000 will land, it is likely that a large number of them will not require remediation in the end, so I encourage residents not to worry about the number, but to see what comes out of the process.
Since December 2022, we have also taken action to make sure that we are starting to separate the need for remediation on properties from people’s ability to get on with their lives. The mortgage sector has been freed up to allow people to take mortgages, to remortgage and to move properties when big life events happen, and we hope that that will continue. I am monitoring, on a month-by-month basis, the large banks and building societies that are providing mortgages, and I can see that progress is being made.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Master Gunner Place in my constituency is in need of remedial work, and the residents have been supplied with a letter of comfort from the developer to say that it will cover the costs. My constituent has written to me to say that his service charge has gone up by 360% in the last eight years. In the last year alone, it has gone up by 107%. He is now paying a £6,000-a-year service charge, even though Hamptons says that the average cost in London for a similar-sized property is £1,700. My constituent says that the additional costs are building safety-related. What does the Minister have to say about that? Can anything be done to stop developers recouping their costs in this way?
Lee Rowley
The first thing we need to do is bring greater transparency to service charges, which is what we are trying to do through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Assuming that progress is made in the other place, I hope that it will be on the statute book as quickly as possible, and then it will be clear exactly where such costs come from.
The second thing that is that our colleagues in the Financial Conduct Authority are bringing in the fair charging regime to make sure there are no inappropriate commissions and that, from an insurance perspective, exchanges are not under way with brokers, which will hopefully reduce the costs.
The third thing is the industry-led insurance scheme, which should hopefully bring down insurance costs for those who are most exposed. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need greater transparency and a greater understanding of where these costs are going, and we need to make sure that freeholders and managing agents are following the law, which is very clear about the kinds of costs that can and cannot be allocated. If there is something specific about the building he mentions that the Government can look at, I will happily talk to him separately.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Efford Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend raises an important question. At the time of appointment, all council leaders should be aware of existing disqualification criteria barring councillors who have been given a custodial sentence of three months or more, or who are registered sex offenders. If the council leader is not aware, those people who are due to be appointed should make their group leader aware of those circumstances. They have a legal obligation to declare as election candidates—this is an important issue. The Nolan principles are there for a reason: to maintain transparency and standards. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with the details of the case he has mentioned, I would be happy to receive his submission.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
The Renters (Reform) Bill will soon enter its Report stage in the House of Commons. That Bill abolishes section 21 evictions, moves the sector to a system of periodic tenancies and introduces a private rented sector property portal and ombudsman, improving the system for responsible tenants and good-faith landlords.
Clive Efford
In my casework, I have seen an alarming rise in the number of no-fault evictions. This is leading to families being moved a long way from my borough, with children having to travel tens of miles to get to school every day. The Government have said that they are going to remove section 21 evictions, but they have not given the criteria under which they are going to do so, and it seems that this is going to be in the hands of the Minister. Opposition Front Benchers have offered to work with the Government to eradicate section 21 evictions. The Government said they would do it four years ago. According to the Government’s own figures, 80,000 families have been threatened with no-fault evictions. When are the Government going to co-operate and get this resolved?
Jacob Young
That is exactly why we are bringing forward the Renters (Reform) Bill. However, as we set out on Second Reading and in Committee, we will not be able to do that until the court system is able to cope with the increased number of cases. We heard evidence in Committee about the huge increase in cases that we will find. We are introducing these reforms in a phased way so that courts and the sector have time to adjust. [Interruption.] I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, that it serves no one to leave tenants or landlords in limbo in a court system that is not functioning properly.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I am sorry to hear about the challenges that my hon. Friend has seen in Rother Valley. It is one reason that more Conservative councillors need to be elected on to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for the future. We are absolutely aware that there are challenges. We need to build more houses and in the right place, and the best way to do that is by getting a local plan in place, and by the councils that are responsible for that engaging properly with their communities about it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Michael Gove
We always stand ready to work with local authorities of whatever stripe or colour to ensure the delivery of new homes. As the hon. Member knows, London is the region of the United Kingdom that has performed worst against its housing targets. Principally, that is down to the Mayor, not to individual local authorities, so I look forward to talking to him about what more we can do together.
Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny
Clive Efford Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is, rightly, a long-standing convention that Opposition parties in this place have the opportunity to raise their concerns through debates such as this, to deal with the big issues of the day and to use the precious time of the House to articulate their vision for the future of this country. On these occasions, the Opposition can choose the subjects, the words they use, the allegations they make and the inferences they allow to be drawn.
So here we are today, having a debate about a blighted and costly site, with a massive price tag when industrial activity ceased, that is being transformed for the benefit of those who live and work nearby, in a region that is on the up. The debate is not about the achievements to date, or the failure of successive Labour Governments and Members of Parliament to improve the lives of people on Teesside. Instead, it is a debate about technicalities. It is not about whether a review will happen, look at these matters in depth or be led by independent experts, because all that will happen. Neither is it about whether the facts will be established, as was raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), because they will be.
Instead, the Opposition have chosen to have a three-hour debate about the process by which a decision was made to have a review that is led by one group of people, instead of by another group of people. It is a debate about how we have chosen to set up a review, in the usual way that we choose to set up reviews rather than in the extraordinary way that the Opposition propose. The Labour party makes strange choices.
I want to say this, because it is important: the Government believe in the people and the places that make Teesside special. We have backed them with funding and powers to level up, which was sorely lacking under the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. That was why Ben Houchen was elected as Mayor in the first place. His record of attracting investment and delivering for the Tees Valley speaks for itself. In that spirit, he approached the Government some time ago about an independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture after the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) had made serious allegations in the House, which he will not repeat outside the House. I want to make it clear now that, as previously stated, Ministers and officials have so far seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.
Lee Rowley
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can, perhaps, tell us precisely what corruption, wrongdoing and illegality he is alleging.
Clive Efford
I just want to point out to the Minister that what he is threatening my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough with is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. We have had debates in this Chamber about SLAPPs; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is sitting next to the Minister, has supported action against them and their use to cover up the Londongrad fraud whereby illegal money has been washed through London banks and financial centres. The Minister should think very carefully before he comes here and threatens people with legal action outside the House to silence democratic debate.
Lee Rowley
There is absolutely no silencing going on. We are debating, we will continue to debate, and we have set up a review to ensure that we understand the allegations that have been made. It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough refuses to repeat those allegations elsewhere, and for people to draw whatever conclusion they wish to draw from that. However, it is also clear that the allegations being made threaten to damage confidence in Teesworks and its success—hence the Secretary of State’s decision on 24 May to commission an independent review of the joint venture.
On the “Today” programme this morning, the hon. Member for Wigan was challenged with the observation that
“there is a danger that political parties throw about allegations of corruption”.
To that point no answer came this morning, and an answer certainly did not come in the opening speech. Now that the Labour party has chosen to allocate a significant amount of parliamentary time to this discussion today, it is incumbent on Opposition Members to spell out their specific concerns. They may have tried not to do that, but they need to state the allegations about which they are concerned.
We listened to a long speech from the hon. Member for Wigan, who set out a factual case about the events that happened in the order in which they happened, but made no comment about what element of concern she felt about each of them. There have been no specific allegations; nothing has been forthcoming except rumour, gossip and innuendo. Perhaps the hon. Lady does not wish to provide allegations, but Opposition Members have certainly alleged that this is the case.
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Mr Cook voted for this structure and he cannot change that vote.
There is no credible suggestion that wrongdoing has occurred. Teesworks is double audited, first by Mazars and then by Azets, two separate auditors. There is then an audit committee for Teesworks. Here we come to the truly jaw-dropping fact that that audit committee is chaired by none other than Councillor Matthew Storey, the leader of Middlesbrough Council’s Labour group and the head of the parliamentary office of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He chairs that audit committee —what concerns has he raised? He is part of the audit structure that is now being cast into doubt.
It is noteworthy that in the speech by the shadow Secretary of State we heard nothing that amounted to a substantive allegation. We heard a series of inferences and questions that amount to nothing more than the same tittle-tattle that has characterised this process, with the exception of the allegation of industrial-scale corruption that has been made but never substantiated, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows that he would be sued for libel if he repeated it.
Clive Efford
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm the rules regarding declarations of interest? If a Member has a declaration of interest on the register, should they not refer to it when they stand up and take part in debates in this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to each individual Member to determine whether their declaration of interest should be made during a debate. Clearly, processes are available should a Member not do so and other Members believe that they should have.
Oral Answers to Questions
Clive Efford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Residents in Master Gunner Place in my constituency are still paying for a waking watch, despite a new fire alarm being introduced. These properties were built with major defects by Countryside Properties, and they are now owned by Samnas. I want to know what the Minister is going to do to take these people to task, because they are costing my constituents a lot of money, which should have been resolved before.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we have recently reopened the waking watch fund, but on the specific issue he has raised, I would be happy to meet him, because I also want to understand why this has not been removed as a result of the money spent.
Voter ID
Clive Efford Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of points that I do not accept. I do not recognise or accept in any shape or form the statements he has made on the Floor of this House that we are seeking to remove the right to vote. I think those were the words he mentioned. I remind him that 99% of young people already have a valid form of voter identification, and I have answered the question put to me on multiple occasions—it is just that Opposition Members do not like the answer.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister has said that people who are turned away at the desk by a qualified voting agent will have that fact recorded. However, if we are looking to understand what is going on as a result of the requirement for ID when voting, surely those people who are turned away by a meeter or greeter at the door must also be recorded, and it is important that the people doing that meeting and greeting are properly trained to do it? Will the Minister go away and give some thought to that point, which she has completely ignored? It will obfuscate any attempt to understand what is going on if people are being turned away at the door and not recorded.
Rachel Maclean
I have not obfuscated or ignored the point. I have been clear that the data on people who are turned away and who later return to the polling station with accepted ID will be recorded by a polling clerk or a presiding officer at the issuing desk. As has been discussed many times in this House, with the arguments rehearsed by many hon. Members, the greeters outside the polling station have an important role to play. However, I am sure that hon. Members can appreciate that, if someone decides not to exercise the right to vote, in a free and democratic society it is not for an agent of a local authority to ask intrusively why that person decides not to vote.
Building Safety
Clive Efford Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I want to be really fair to the hon. Member: he is doing the right thing. He has highlighted an abuse and has contacted the Department in a co-operative and detailed fashion. The Minister for Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, has been looking closely at that case. There is more that we can do, and I thank the hon. Member on behalf of his constituents for being tenacious in trying to get a good deal for them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have a Galliard development in my constituency, and my constituents will be concerned that Galliard has not signed. They would like to hear from the Secretary of State what that means for them. They have life-critical safety defects in the building, which is shocking, because that building construction was paused as a consequence of the tragedy at Grenfell, yet Galliard went on to develop a building that has those defects. What does today’s statement from the Secretary of State mean for my constituents who are waiting to hear from Galliard about the state of their buildings?
Michael Gove
This is a sad note on which to come to the conclusion of the statement, because Galliard is one of the companies that has been the most recalcitrant throughout, and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Other companies have done the right thing and have done so with a willing heart, but Galliard has held out—it has briefed against the Department and all the rest of it. Unless Galliard signs, it will face consequences, and its business model will be fundamentally challenged by the legislation that we in this House have passed. Ultimately, with a company such as Galliard whose owners, directors and investors are determined not to play ball, the consequences will come for it. I want to be clear with the hon. Member and this House that Galliard will face condign consequences if it does not act.