Homelessness and Temporary Accommodation

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered homelessness and temporary accommodation.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and delighted, as well, that the debate has attracted support in the Chamber on an issue that is central to much of our work as Members of Parliament but not discussed as often as we would like. Although there is a great deal to cover under the topic of homelessness and temporary accommodation, I shall concentrate particularly on conditions, and I hope that colleagues will address some of the other important issues that come under its umbrella.

“I feel like I am being punished.”

Those were the words of a desperate mother accepted as homeless after experiencing domestic violence, and placed in temporary accommodation by my local authority, Westminster City Council, like tens of thousands of others. There were 98,300 households in temporary accommodation in June, including 127,240 children, and that was up by 14% in the last year alone. The mother was found a private flat by the council, somewhat misleadingly described as temporary, because she has stayed in that limbo for seven years already. That is not my personal record for temporary accommodation. The current record is 21 years, and 10 years is not at all unusual.

The properties that the mother in question and everyone like her have been placed in are expensive. Their rents are similar to full market-level private rents. In a particularly cruel twist, those high rents mean that a high percentage of homeless households are immediately caught by the benefit cap, even though the occupants had no choice about where they were placed, or the rents they would pay. They are also insecure, as the mother in question is. Families such as hers are forced to move constantly, not just within the local area but across the city and beyond, regardless of the schools that the children attend or their personal needs.

A heavily pregnant constituent, who was registered blind, was placed first in north London, in a property with multiple stairs, that was not self-contained and where she was at risk of falling, and then in east London, where she was expected to navigate totally unfamiliar surroundings. She said to me:

“I’m very frightened from places I’m unfamiliar with, as I can’t get around”.

A family with two blind young adult children attending college were told they simply had to learn new mobility routes, as they were sent to the other side of London. These are all recent cases. Someone else told me:

“We were living locally for 19 years, and working in the hospital. We were evicted from our flat and had to approach Westminster council for help. We were placed in an emergency self contained flat that we were told was just for six weeks, so we couldn’t change our daughter’s school. But unfortunately its lapsed to 7 months. The transport is too expensive from West London just to take my daughter to the school. The cost is £60 weekly which we can’t afford any more—and the journey is too long—my wife has to leave home at 6AM to reach the school at 9AM. She find it very hard with little girl who is just 28 months old.”

The stories of dislocation and of the crisis of affordability could fill this debate alone, but I want to concentrate on the condition of the properties that my constituents are placed in. Those conditions are beyond belief, particularly given the amount of public money that is going into supporting the almost entirely private landlords providing the accommodation.

The family commuting five hours a day to school also reported:

“The condition of the flat is very bad & cold we are on the top of the building, & all is glass, with damp everywhere, the water leaking through the glass all around us”.

The same mother I referred to at the beginning of the speech, who was homeless owing to domestic violence, contacted me a few weeks ago to say:

“The property we are in is a shambles with mice, rats and rising damp and mould throughout. The Council has contacted the housing association managing the property, who has contacted the landlord. She sent her surveyor to the property in August. He was shocked to see how much damp we have. He said it would need major work done. I have postnatal depression and suffer from an illness which means I get migraines with stroke-type symptoms with them. I am on medication. My eldest son also has asthma and rising damp is in the kids room. The damp in my room is so bad myself and the baby are now sleeping on the floor in the front room and the new born is having problems breathing”.

Another mother wrote to me—all these examples are from this year, in the time of covid:

“I am in shock that the council can give properties to people in the state I was given mine especially with a six week old baby. I was told last minute after just giving birth that the temporary emergency accommodation I was in needed to be vacated. I was given a flat on the other side of London despite explaining all my support system was locally which is important to me as someone who suffers depression and anxiety with a history of attempted suicide which has gotten worse since I’ve been moved so far already.

Now I’m sitting in the living room on the first night nursing my new born when suddenly there is leaking from the ceiling and water is falling fast. The next day a contractor comes and tells me this is a previous issue that wasn’t fixed by Westminster and if he hadn’t come today the ceiling would have collapsed on me! He had to cut two big holes in the ceiling to dry out the ceiling as a water pipe had been leaking for some time before I moved in. Now the ceiling in the kitchen is leaking with water falling through the smoke alarm”.

There are more, oh so many more:

“Dear Ms Buck. I live in a Westminster temporary council flat, one of my 3 children is autistic. My neighbour down stairs shouts and kicks my door because of the leaking water in her flat which we reported to the agency A2Dominion”—

the housing association responsible for managing the property—

“and no one fixed. My kids are scared—especially the autistic child—they can’t sleep and so are doing no good in school”.

Another constituent came to me after being referred through the council’s children’s services. Even then—although Westminster council has now responded to this and one or two of the other cases—the council took 10 months to resolve the problem, despite being told:

“The mould is so severe because it was left for a very long time untreated…I can send you a copy of the EH”

environmental health—

“report and at least 40 pictures to outline the severity of mould and dampness and how it ate the plastering off the walls. This mould releases spores into the air which makes everybody inside this place always in hayfever condition. We have to keep all windows open for at least 5 hours every day. You could imagine the cost of heating…as we have a little boy who is autistic and had a very serious breathing condition and needs medical attention if he gets a simple cold. It is not only my son getting constantly ill but our food is mouldy and the clothes inside the cupboards are mouldy too.”

Another constituent wrote:

“Although we are on the waiting list for many years now, A2Dominion has not kept up its maintenance of this property. We have mould in all the rooms, carpets and furniture. The floor is a hazard as initially it did not even have underlay. Due to the wear and tear of 15 years we were advised to remove it and now we are without carpet. Winter is settling in and we will be cold. In the last few weeks, we have had to kill 6 mice. There are holes in floorboards and walls where they come in”.

Another said:

“I am in a temporary accommodation…by Westminster council placed in Leyton. I have written to my landlord to tell them that repairs are needed for three years now. I have allowed a reasonable time for my landlord to do these repairs, but they have not done them. I reported these problems to my landlord: Mould everywhere, walls are wet and the flooring wet everywhere. My son now has respiratory problems and hard breathing due to the property state, and is now under the hospital for his respiratory infection…it’s getting worse day by day. The house is all mould and suffocating for me and child—it’s life threatening to me and my son. I have contacted the housing at Westminster, the receptionist keeps telling me she will send an urgent email and someone will call me back but not a single person is. Ceiling has fallen down on me and my 3 years old in the bathroom…The agency came to try to cover it up and the man working for the agency when he opened the ceiling roof said this is life-threatening and it needs to get repaired but the landlord refusing to pay a lot of money as it costs too much.”

Another wrote to me:

“I am writing to inform you of my revolting state of living in this temporary accommodation of mine and the neglect of A2Dominion. I am a mother of two autistic children under the age of 10. Both suffer from severe disabilities…My temporary accommodation has horrid dampness…which has affected our cardiovascular medical condition and has made my children and I suffer tremendously during the past one year and a half ever since we moved into here. The carpets are damp to the point where you cannot keep your feet on the ground for too long while sitting. In addition to rats and mice that were roaming through the flat freely my electric meter caused a huge fire in the building which was luckily put out...Due to this, I have been without electricity for almost a week now.

I have spent the last 6 days in the most difficult state. I have not had any help or support from A2Dominion nor the council. Both are throwing the responsibility on another, while I am staying in a home everyday in order to keep my kids warm and fed in this cold winter. We are literally homeless right now and nothing has been done to fix the electricity and replace the meter, regardless of the hundreds of calls and pleas for help that I have made. I have no option but to turn to you for help. I am desperate and exhausted. My children are struggling and suffering with me. Their medical conditions are a huge obstacle, as they unable to accept change.”

And another:

“I’m writing this email in the hopes you could help me…I’m currently in long term temporary accommodation in Newham with my 4 month old baby…I’m from Westminster and have been accepted by the council. I’m currently in an unsuitable accommodation which…is infested with mice and vermin. I moved in in March this year and by the third day I reported the infestation of mice and large holes in the bathroom, kitchen and living room. Due to covid-19 the landlord refused to fill out any holes forcing me to do it myself very unprofessionally and desperately whilst heavily pregnant. When Lockdown came to an end the landlord did send out two different men…to fill the holes, and they did nothing…I pressured the housing to help force the landlord to fill the holes and it was a back and forth for a couple of weeks resulting in the maintenance team saying ‘the house is 200 years old…there’s nothing more I can do’ and ‘The kitchen flooring has water damage causing wood decay along the whole flooring for the kitchen which brings in rodents from the basement’…now as there’s holes everywhere and I even hear them eat through some holes and they come in…some eat the poison and die in my house…I’m stranded alone dealing with this, and it’s worsening my postpartum depression and anxiety. I can’t stay in this house another week. Due to lockdown new restriction of staying in other households I am really fighting my depression as I can’t even sofa surf due to safety issues. Please, please help us.”

And the last:

“In 2018 my family had been placed by Westminster in our current flat which has been deemed unfit to live in and determined to be detrimental to our health on a number of occasions during our stay (there is black mould/fungus/bacteria covering our walls). In addition to this, due to the building being quite literally bent out of shape, and slowly collapsing in on us, the windows in the living room are unable to close…making the entire house very cold, especially as we approach winter times. We have lived in these deteriorating conditions for…2 and a half years now despite it being considered urgent by every inspector that came to inspect the building saying that we should be rehoused immediately”.

I have managed to get two or three of these cases resolved in the last week. These are a selection, and I could have doubled, tripled or quadrupled the examples of the conditions that people are being kept in. The harshness of the conditions that people are experiencing as they go through the homeless system has to be seen to be believed. I do not understand how local authorities let this happen. I do not understand how the housing associations that are intermediaries—A2Dominion, Genesis, and Stadium housing associations among the worst, in my own experience; others will have other examples—allow this to happen. I do not understand how the Government allow it to happen, given the amount of public money that is being put into this.

The pressure of numbers is taking its toll. The figures are creeping up every year, year on year since 2011. Local councils are unequipped to cope with and pay for the homes that are required. Two thirds of all households that are homeless in Britain—62,670 households—were placed in temporary accommodation by London local authorities. Even prior to covid-19, London boroughs’ expenditure on homelessness was expected to rise to a total of £1 billion by 2021-22. Nearly a quarter of this is unfunded by central Government, thereby increasing the pressure on other services. There is no doubt that the pressure of those figures means that the ability to manage the quality of the accommodation is undermined, and the Government are failing to make good on the requirement to support these services. Unless the Government act on this, the brutal experiences being endured by my constituents will only continue to worsen.

Research from Shelter earlier this year revealed the explosion of the temporary accommodation industry. Between April 2018 and March 2019, councils spent over £1 billion on temporary accommodation—a rise of 9% in a year, and 78% in five years. Shelter’s research shows that 86% of this money is flowing directly to private providers, most of whom are unregulated. This explosion in expenditure has been fuelled by a chronic lack of investment in decent, genuinely affordable social housing.

The Minister will, I fear, just tell us how much the Government are spending. That is utterly meaningless unless there is a recognition of how far short funding falls, compared with what is needed, and of the wider context of cuts to social security, local housing allowance, local councils and social house building. I hope that I will be disappointed and that that is not what the Minister will say.

We need fundamental changes to housing supply and housing support in the social security system. We need proper management of and accountability for the homes that vulnerable and homeless people get stranded in. We need to strengthen the welfare safety net, remove the benefit cap, reverse the freeze to local housing allowance and ensure that rents align with the 50th percentile of market rents. We need urgent legislation to give private renters more security and end no-fault evictions, which remain one of the leading causes of homelessness. We need to invest in a new generation of social housing to provide families with stable, permanent and affordable homes.

Local councils need their homelessness costs to be fully funded. Homeless households need to be accommodated locally, except in exceptional circumstances, and the routine use of out-of-borough housing must be ended. Ministers have previously assured us that that will happen. They have promised us that it should be the exception rather than the rule, but that commitment is honoured only in the breach. Capacity and resources need to be made available to ensure that standards of accommodation are acceptable.

Homelessness is always a hellish experience, and the people who endure it are almost by definition already highly vulnerable. It should not be a punishment, but my constituents ask me this question again and again: “Why am I being punished for the sin of being homeless?”

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that there are a lot of people trying to take part, so if you want me to get you all in, we will have to limit you to three minutes. I am sorry.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her very compelling speech and for the personal accounts of her constituents. All Members have experience of similar emails and one-to-one encounters, so I thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the Minister for the Department’s commitment during the pandemic to tackling rough sleeping and trying to end it across England. We have had the highest commitment in funding that I can remember to tackle the issue during the pandemic and enable local councils to house those who are sleeping rough, so I thank the Minister for that.

The hon. Lady’s excellent speech was about the conditions of temporary accommodation, and I want to focus on temporary accommodation for families. As she said, this is particularly a London issue, given the high cost of living, the high population and the lack of affordable and social housing. It is something that I saw at first hand in my previous roles, when I worked as a community outreach worker. I saw families who were living in rat and cockroach-infested multi-dwelling homes with other families. It was a London issue that I saw over and over again.

I have visited other parts of the UK, including the west midlands, to look at best practice in places where we have tackled this problem proactively. Something that I noticed in the west midlands was the approach of linking housing to employment. Andy Street, the Mayor of the west midlands, has done an excellent job of providing housing, employment opportunities and transport. As housing is a devolved matter, mainly to the Mayor or local authorities, it would be worth the Mayor of London looking at how he can support families who are trapped in temporary accommodation.

I also ask that the Minister consider the high cost of temporary accommodation in urban areas. Between 2018 and 2019, councils spent more than £1 billion on temporary accommodation. That explosion in expenditure has been fuelled by a chronic lack of genuinely affordable social housing, and that is particularly true in London.

This is an incredibly complex issue to tackle, and as I said it is the devolved power of the Mayor. Unfortunately, the expansion of permitted development rights has inadvertently led to the creation of some low-quality and unsuitable accommodation—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. No civilised country in the 21st century should have people living on the streets. Governments of all persuasions have tried to combat the problem of homelessness, with varying degrees of commitment and success. Despite those efforts, it took a pandemic to demonstrate the scale and scope of the action needed to eradicate homelessness once and for all.

The UK Government appear to have pledged to end rough sleeping, but it is the Welsh Government who have developed truly ambitious plans. During the pandemic, the decisive and compassionate action of councils in Wales in partnership with Health, the third sector, registered social housing and voluntary organisations to bring people off the streets has saved lives. Homeless people were placed in safe and secure accommodation, engaging with local services perhaps for the first time. That was all achieved in a few weeks, but providing temporary emergency accommodation does not end homelessness, so the Welsh Government are determined to transform that into long-term accommodation. The second £50 million phase of the Welsh Government’s homelessness programme will therefore provide 2,266 people in emergency accommodation with long-term homes, whereas the equivalent UK Government programme in England—the £105 million next steps accommodation programme—merely suggests in its guidance that housing provided for homeless people by councils in England during the pandemic will have tenancies of just two years.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Welsh Government have allocated three times the funding available in England. Councils in Wales have received £10 million to tackle homelessness, compared with £3.2 million in England, where councils deal with a far greater number of rough sleepers. Migrants with no recourse to public funds, and those who have sofa-surfed, are included in Welsh Government policy, whereas in England that is not the case. The policy in Wales is predicated on the belief that everyone has the right to live in a secure, permanent home.

Latest figures show that not one homeless person died from covid-19 in Wales up to 26 June. The chief executive of Crisis, Jon Sparkes, said:

“Only the Welsh Government is committed to putting in place comprehensive policies to end homelessness by providing permanent homes for everyone in need”.

However, there is so much more to do. The Welsh Government Housing Minister, Julie James, said:

“There’s no easy solution to this. I’ve been clear all the way through we have not solved this problem, but we’re on the right road to making sure people are housed and not sustained on the streets.”

We must therefore tackle the problems rooted in homelessness—poverty, substance misuse and mental health issues. We need a holistic approach. Therefore, as we head into winter, which is a challenging period in any year, let along during the pandemic, I ask the Minister to support the Welsh Government’s endeavours to eliminate homelessness—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave a reasonable amount of time at the end.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I recognise that this Government are responsible for ensuring that we are able to develop policies and tackle some of the challenges this country faces. However, I would like to talk about what we are doing, what we have done and what we will continue to focus on. We could talk about what successive Governments have and have not done. I am speaking as Minister today about what we are doing moving forward. Throughout the pandemic, we have provided unprecedented support to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected and our communities are kept safe.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady asks about families and children in temporary accommodation.  I, too, have concerns about any families and young people having to live their lives in temporary accommodation. As I have outlined, that is why this Government are investing in the Move On programme and the Next Steps accommodation programme. We are also committed to investing long-term in our housebuilding programme, and in affordable and social rented homes. I totally understand the pressures and challenges for young people in insecure homes, and it is something that this Government and I are determined to resolve.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a recent visit to YMCA Lincolnshire in Gainsborough, I was briefed on the excellent work done for homeless people in Lincoln at the charity’s Nomad Centre. But when I talked to the chief executive this morning, she told me that her main worry is not so much the level of Government support, but whether it is trickling down from local government to charities quickly enough. That leads me to a wider point, which I suppose is also a Conservative one: in a pandemic we always think that the state can do everything, but we should really be empowering and supporting charities.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

We are working with local authorities to ensure that the support is trickling down to exactly where it is needed. We are working intensively with local authorities on plans for how that money will be spent, and on the impact on the ground. If my right hon. Friend has any further details, I will happily take up this issue. Indeed, if any Member across the House has any particular local issues, I will take them up and investigate further. It is true that this Government have taken unprecedented action to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness during the pandemic, and I remain committed to continuing that work.

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we want to help the good park owners. Changing the index of calculations from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will obviously reduce the income for improvements. I am sure we will consider the matter in Committee, but will he assure the House that he will allow good park home owners the latitude and finances necessary to make necessary improvements to the site?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not think the good park home owners have any problem about trying to make ends meet. It would be much more difficult for them were we to, for example, change the 10% commission that is payable on the sale of any park home. My right hon. Friend refers to the matter going into Committee; let us hope that in due course that will be possible.

I have made the point about the service charges sometimes including repairs and maintenance that should already have been paid for in the pitch fees, and that is dealt with in clause 1(2)(a). The second issue—the change to CPI indexing to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred—is dealt with in clause 1(2)(b).

On the pitch fee review, the Government concluded, in their 2018 response, that they had

“considered all the arguments put forward including concerns about affordability for both residents and site owners. We also considered the merits of using CPI or RPI as the pitch fee review inflationary index and have concluded that CPI is the most appropriate inflationary index…The Government will introduce legislation in due course to change the pitch fee review inflationary index from RPI to CPI, when parliamentary time allows.”

That is exactly what the Bill does: it enables the parliamentary time to be found to make that change.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

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

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will happily give way to the mover of that amendment. [Interruption.]

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Actually, to be fair, the Minister has just been dealing with new clause 8, which I have moved. I am very grateful for what he has said. He seemed to suggest that the new clause was not in itself wrong, but was not necessary. But will he accept that, certainly when this Bill goes to the House of Lords, it might be helpful for the Government to produce an idea like this as another arrow in the armoury to reassure those who want to use international law in the right way, if the EU acts unreasonably? The advantage of a unilateral interpretive declaration under the Vienna convention, is that we can do it in this way, so I am grateful to the Minister.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend. It is right that he gets to speak as it is about his amendment. He is trying to be helpful in this regard, and I know that Ministers in the other place will take heed of his comments as they engage with colleagues there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I rise to speak to new clause 8 in my name. I shall attempt, within your time constraint, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get these complex legal and international law arguments on the record.

The problem is not the possibility of the UK breaking international law, which we do not want to do, obviously; the problem is the UK’s being prepared in case the EU fails in its willingness to interpret the protocol on Northern Ireland in a proper way. We have a legal tool at our disposal that would help clarify the situation in accord with international law: a unilateral interpretative declaration. My new clause 8 describes in some detail how that could be done. It would help our negotiating position in securing an EU trade agreement and, just as importantly, it would help get the Bill through the House of Lords.

Many in the other place will be concerned about the possibility that the UK Government may be opening the door to breaking international law. We pride ourselves on the rule of law and we should maintain our commitment to it. The real problem is whether the EU is willing to implement the protocol in a reasonable and effective manner. We do not need to break international law; we need to prevent the EU from breaking international law by violating its treaty commitments.

The EU has suggested that it would break its commitments in the protocol. It has said that it would consider breaking its commitments to allowing food from England, Wales or Scotland to be sold in Northern Ireland if the UK did not make concessions on the free trade agreement. That is on the record in Michel Barnier’s statement on 10 September. In the light of that, the Government understandably introduced this Bill, so that we can act when the EU threatens the economic integrity of the United Kingdom.

We are committed to implementing the protocol, which we signed up to, but we are only committed to what we actually agreed to—no more and no less. This is the nub of the problem. We are not bound by new interpretations of the protocol that the EU might seek to impose on us. We are not required under international law to accept all the proposals that the EU tables in the negotiations. We cannot accept any bargaining linkage being made between implementing what has been agreed under the protocol in good faith, and what has still to be agreed about our future relationship.

There is a compromise available. We can use international law to ensure that the EU meets the commitments it made in the protocol. We can assert our position, as I have argued, in a unilateral interpretative declaration, if—and only if—the EU behaves unreasonably.

The initial version of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed to in November 2018 could have bound us indefinitely to maintaining full alignment with the EU’s single market regulations and membership of the customs union. In an Adjournment debate in February 2019, I advocated the use of a conditional unilateral interpretative declaration to assert the temporary nature of the backstop. That word “temporary” was then in the protocol.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who was then the Attorney General, took this up to seek a time limit or a withdraw mechanism from the backstop. That was the basis of documents tabled on 11 March 2019 for the second meaningful vote. Unfortunately, the unilateral declaration issued then was not made strong enough to guarantee an exit from the backstop according to many people in this House. The Government, I believe, should have asserted a stronger interpretation.

Nevertheless, in December last year, we succeeded in getting rid of the backstop. The question is whether the agreed Northern Ireland protocol will be implemented in good faith. The protocol is a good compromise. Rather than abandoning international law, we must use the full provisions of international law to ensure that the protocol is implemented as we agreed.

The general principles of international law applicable to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol are spelled out in the 1986 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. In addition, in 2011, the International Law Commission of the UN codified a guide of practice for handling disagreements about the interpretation of treaties. That allows an individual Government to issue a declaration on their interpretation of the meaning of specific aspects of a treaty. The UK can do that unilaterally, without any agreement from the EU.

To leave the realm of politics and enter the realm of international law, any unilateral interpretative declaration must be sent to the depositary of the treaty. I proposed in an amendment in Committee that the Government should use this declaration to assert their position if the EU were to fail to implement aspects of the protocol. My new clause 8 now spells out in some detail how the declaration could be used. Subsection (1) specifies that the Government should invoke this procedure if the EU fails to carry out the requirements of the protocol. Subsection (2) specifies that the Government should ensure that their interpretation of the protocol is justified by, and in accord with, the provisions of the Vienna convention.

It is important to note that the Vienna convention covers the need to act in “good faith” and the need to avoid results that are “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”. Subsection (3) therefore requires the Government to obtain parliamentary approval before they make a legal challenge, and subsection (4) requires the Government to report back to Parliament on whether the EU has approved the interpretation. If the dispute were to continue, there would be a choice: we could seek negotiations to achieve a compromise in the Joint Committee, or we could invoke the withdrawal agreement’s arbitration procedures. If the dispute could not be resolved and arbitration were required, we would have acted in good faith—that is the point—in international law. We would have established our case and started arbitration on our own terms.

The Government are right to challenge the EU. We can uphold international law. We can challenge the EU with proper legal methods. We do not need to accept its interpretation of the protocol. When we face unreasonable demands, we have a chance to state our interpretation of what we agreed when we signed the protocol. We can challenge the EU with a unilateral interpretative declaration and, hence, defend our position in full accord with international law. I ask the Government to consider positively this compromise, on which we can all agree and which is offered to the Government in good faith.

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to speak to new clause 6, which is in my name. Its intention is to ensure that those seeking public money for economic development under this legislation are obliged to undertake a climate and nature emergency impact assessment.

The powers set out in part 6 of the Bill provide assistance in a way that would be subject to very few restrictions. New clause 6 is designed to be a genuinely constructive and practical suggestion to help Ministers see the serious gap in the legislation, and to help them to assess and decide whether the money they are dishing out is trashing the environment or supporting its restoration.

Both the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), earlier this afternoon, and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), last week, said that the UK Government have a determination to see climate and environmental goals achieved. Well, I am very glad to hear that, but it makes me even more perplexed that they are not willing to accept what I regard as a helpful and friendly amendment. In fact, both Ministers have also said that it was not necessary to introduce any kind of conditions on the financial assistance powers in the Bill, because apparently there is already an overarching legal and policy framework for achieving those goals. That is not good enough. We need commitments that would make those fine words actually bite when it comes to the wide financial assistance decisions set out in the Bill.

The Bill has conferred astoundingly broad powers on Ministers, but without clarity or direction over the mechanisms that they will use to judge whether they are upholding policy commitments—and vague references to overarching frameworks just will not cut it. The bottom line is that, in order to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, the state must not risk supporting projects, companies or industries that threaten to undermine progress toward meeting climate, nature and environmental goals and targets. To avoid that risk, people need to be asking and proving how their requests measure up to climate, nature and environmental goals and targets, and the Government need to check.

The production of impact statements for any proposal for financial assistance will not only help to ensure that individual projects consider long-term sustainability, including avoiding or mitigating potential negative impacts, and maximising the benefits of delivering a green economy; it will also enable Governments across the UK to better understand the aggregate impacts of such financial assistance, and measure them against the goals and targets to which they have already committed themselves. In other words, impact statements would be not an additional burden, but a necessity to reach stated goals. They would also provide a useful opportunity to demonstrate the positive impact that ambitious and well directed investment can bring. The statements would help Ministers—and, indeed, all of us—by providing the benefits of public accountability and value for money, as well as important integrated policy making to tackle the nature and climate crises.

Let us not forget that we have had so many commitments —at least in fine words—from this Government on keeping high standards post Brexit. The Conservative party manifesto promised

“the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.”

It is extraordinary that a Government who say that balk when it comes to any practical measure that would enable them to implement that commitment.

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister’s comments at the signing ceremony of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature sounded positive. He said that we need to turn words into action, and I could not agree with him more. He said that we need ambitious goals and binding targets and, in his characteristic language:

“We cannot afford dither and delay because biodiversity loss is happening today.”

Yes, Prime Minister, it is, and this straightforward measure would enable him to deliver on the fine words by supporting a mechanism that is designed to achieve exactly that. Otherwise, words are cheap.

New clause 6 is not just a “nice to have” or a green add on; it is a vital way of ensuring that we implement our existing commitments. In May last year, Parliament passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. Marvellous —I was the first to be pleased about that, but we need a mechanism to ensure that subsequent policy making is in line with that commitment. Otherwise, it is meaningless. We have heard time and again how post Brexit, the UK will be able to have higher environmental standards than the EU, yet the next round of European structural funds will have tackling climate change and addressing the just transition as a major theme. Surely at the very least we should aspire to do the same.

Evidence that we must act responsibly and urgently is mounting every day. As I have already said, the UK Government are failing to meet as many as 17 of the 20 biodiversity targets that we set ourselves 10 years ago. We have plenty of examples of money that is being spent in a way that undermines environmental sustainability, so we know we need to act.

Just this morning, Professor Simon Lewis of University College London reminded us that the biodiversity crisis is not a problem in someone else’s backyard; it is happening in the UK. We live in one of the most nature depleted countries on earth. We have lost 55% of our forest birds in 50 years, and 97% of our flower-rich meadows since the second world war. We have just 13% woody cover, compared with an EU average of 38%. Scientists regularly document huge declines in beetles, bees, butterflies, moths and ladybirds.

Those things do not happen by accident. They happen as a direct result of public policy. They happen as a direct result of where money is spent. It is therefore critical that, if and when Ministers choose to exercise the powers in the Bill, they do so in a way that is consistent and compatible with any environmental and climate goals and targets in the relevant part of the UK.

I know time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to say how much I support new clause 1, which has been tabled in the name of the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). His powerful speech to the House on Second Reading left the Prime Minister embarrassed and exposed. Embarrassed because this is frankly all a bit of a game for a Prime Minister who does not like to lose, and exposed because the Prime Minister is at least supposed to uphold international law. In this case he is asking Parliament to give his Government authorisation to break a treaty that he negotiated and signed last year, and on which his whole general election campaign was based. You almost couldn’t make it up, but that comes after the Prorogation scandal, and a string of attacks on civil servants and the operations of our democracy, delivered by a Prime Minister who thinks little of shutting down Parliament when it gets in his way.

Under any Government of principle, new clause 1 would not be contentious, but sadly it is needed tonight because the Government’s amendment still leaves us with a Bill that clearly authorises Ministers to break international law. This is not a matter of left or right, or of leaving or remaining in Europe; this is about our democracy. To vote for the “treaty undercut” clauses in this group is not to provide a safety net, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster desperately suggested yesterday. Instead, it is to fire a cannon ball through the safety net of democratic principle. By contrast, new clause 1 gives MPs the opportunity to demonstrate the immovable principle that it is outrageous for any Prime Minister, any Attorney General, any Justice Secretary—indeed, it should be out of the question for any MP—to be part of legislation that authorises Ministers to break the rule of law. So I hope that every Member of the House will vote for new clause 1, and against the indefensible precedent that the Government seek to set.

Government amendment 13 is yet another attempt by the Government to avoid scrutiny of their actions, this time by the courts. It is basic to our way of life and to our history that no one is above the law, but clause 45 is a crude attempt to put Ministers above the law. Not only are Ministers seeking the power to legislate in breach of international law, but Parliament is being asked to pass a law whose aim is obviously to prevent any effective constraint on Ministers. This should be out of the question for any Government with any respect for the rule of law. Again, none of the Law Officers, no Minister and no MP should be prepared to vote for such an attack on the basic principles of our constitution.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we remain flexible. We continue to work with businesses from all sectors to ensure that we can get to a point where we can work through the gears to get a full economic recovery over time. That will mean support from the Government in all manner of ways, which we are considering.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We have no idea what will happen—there could be a second lockdown or other things; we do not know. Will the Minister comment on the necessity or value of including in the Bill a review procedure, which, if something changes, would allow the Government to be fleet of foot in aiding businesses? That particularly applies to those who lose their premises because of the difficult economic situation and who may find it very difficult to find new ones.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will note that the Government have extended the moratorium on the forfeiture of leases due to covid-19 debts to 30 September, with which the amendments in the Bill have become aligned. In my conversations with retail and hospitality in particular, but not solely with them, I have been exercised by property and the balance between landlord and tenant. We must keep an eye on that.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Edward Leigh Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and it has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee under his guidance for the last four years. I agree with many of the points he made, particularly the last stuff on cladding. We know that is a much bigger issue than is currently accepted, and we need to deal with it. It is interesting that he talks about local authorities not having rents capped when it is Labour party policy to cap rents in the private sector. I am not sure that is a very balanced approach.

I agree with many of the points the hon. Gentleman made about the spending challenges for local authorities. Clearly, there are huge spending challenges for local authorities and also for the national Government. It is my belief that we will have to address this stuff in a very different way. This is not a party political point, but Governments of all persuasions have balanced the books in this country only seven times—they have done so in only seven years—over the past 53 years. We cannot simply keep spending more than we are getting in, otherwise we end up with the £2 trillion debt, which is where we are.

I regret some of the spending pledges in our leadership contest at the moment, because we have got to run this country much more prudently. We have to be able to balance the books on an ongoing basis, and certainly to do so within a cycle. We have some massive challenges ahead that we will all have to accept: the cost of healthcare that we are going to provide; the cost of pensions that we are going to have to provide; and the costs of social care. As things are at the moment, all this is going to land on the taxpayer. It does not seem feasible that that situation can continue, particularly in the area of social care. We know there is a funding gap for local authorities of about £3 billion, which will rise to about £8 billion within five years, according to the LGA.

The Minister is doing a brilliant job in trying to get extra funds, and also in making sure that the funds are spread fairly across the country. The current funding formula is certainly not fair. My local authority has about 50% less spending power compared with some London authorities, for example. We need a fair settlement—one that is fair to everybody—but this has to be a rising tide that lifts all boats. If we do not put extra money into the system, we cannot provide a fairer funding system, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said about school funding, and we cannot have some people losing out when everybody’s budgets are tight. We are going to have to find some more money for local authorities from somewhere if we are properly to address the fairer funding issue.

The biggest issues for my local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, are those involving children’s services and social care, which is what I primarily want to talk about. The difficulty with social care is that it has virtually zero correlation with the method of funding local authorities today or in the future. Moving to a system of business retention—the Minister knows I have reservations about such a system—means a finite amount of money for local authorities at a time when there is huge and rising demand for social care. There is no correlation between those two things. Local authority funding will be unsustainable. Either we find a new way of doing this, or local authorities will provide many fewer services in future.

The Select Committee considered social care twice. The first time, we went to Germany to look at the system there and then we conducted a joint inquiry with the Health and Social Care Committee. We settled on several recommendations, one of which constitutes the right solution, which is sustainable, scaleable and simple. It is the German system that was adopted in 1995. Before then, the German system was funded by local authorities. I am sure that they recognised that that was not sustainable, so they moved to a system of social insurance.

Everybody pays a small amount—just over 1% of people’s salaries, and the employer pays 1% of earnings—into a private insurance system. The insurance companies are not for profit—nobody makes any money out of the system. The levies are settled nationally, and the system also covers people with learning difficulties and disabilities. The system is simple and sustainable. Everybody pays a small amount so that nobody has to pay everything. That is the fairest part.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is talking about social insurance. I and many others have been arguing that the continental system of social insurance, particularly for funding health services, is probably the way forward. As our population ages, getting public support to pay for those services through general taxation becomes increasingly unsustainable. Personalising social insurance creates more support.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I believe that healthcare is different. Social care should be funded differently because everybody has a personal responsibility to provide for themselves in the future. Of course, people do not put money aside for many reasons. The system must be mandatory—that is the key—so that everybody puts some money aside even when times are tough. There is a threshold for people on low incomes, but the system means that people properly prepare for the future.

One of the biggest benefits comes when people are assessed as needing care. They can take the services of a charitable provider or the local authority, or decide to take the money. People who decide to take the money on a monthly basis can pay it to a relative or loved one to look after them. Another big benefit is therefore social cohesion. The system is about family looking after family, just as we used to do. We do not do that as much now. The system is good for society and for community. We saw that huge benefit when we went to Germany.

We have cross-party support for the idea. Both Select Committees—20-odd of us—reached that conclusion. It was one of the recommendations of our report, so we should work cross-party on it. There have been commissions on social care in the past, but when they report, the question is whether the recommendations are possible politically. If we put together our own parliamentary commission and reach cross-party consensus, I believe that we could deliver the recommendation.

The system has to be mandatory because there will not be an insurance market for it otherwise. That was the problem with the Dilnot recommendation. The scheme was not mandatory and therefore no insurance market developed on the back of it, so there was nothing available for social insurance. It is a great opportunity, which will cut the link between a potential huge future cost for local authorities, and our ageing population and the increased number of people with learning disabilities. Obviously, local authorities will have a huge part to play in directing services, but they will also be able to provide the other services that are critical for local people.

I am keen to work cross-party on the matter. I know that the Local Government Minister has regarded the proposal positively in the past and I am keen for the Department to give it a positive recommendation in the forthcoming Green Paper.

Sikhs: Contribution to the UK

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

As you can see, we have a large number of Members who wish to speak. We may need to set a time limit, because I want to try to get everybody in. In the meantime, perhaps we can have nice short speeches of no more than five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. There is nothing more frustrating than not getting in, so I am afraid that I have to impose a time limit of four and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister and all who have taken part. I am sure that the debate on the issue of a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre will continue. I hope the Prime Minister will use her Vaisakhi event next month to move things forward.

I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill): raising awareness has a purpose, which is to build relations and to tackle hate, inequality and injustice. Where that requires Parliament to act, I hope we will have the courage to do so. In this debate, we have heard that people from the Sikh community have contributed to our society in so many ways—from Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who campaigned for suffrage in my constituency, to Fauja Singh in sport. We have not mentioned him, but this is a marathon week.

I close by thanking the Sikh community in my constituency and the leaders of our main local gurdwaras for all they do in working in an interfaith way, recognising the words of Guru Nanak Dev Ji that there is no Hindu and there is no Muslim. That we are all one together is a strong message that comes from the Sikh faith. I would like to mention Zora Singh Khangora, Gurmej Kaur, Gurmit Singh Hanzara, Premi Singh from the Afghan Sikhs, Sarup Singh Mahon, Gurmail Singh Malhi and our deputy mayor, Councillor Sumra, and all the other Sikh councillors who do a huge amount to keep the bridge strong between our community and our politics.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

On a personal note, it has been a great privilege to chair this wonderful debate, in which we have all come together to celebrate the contribution of the Sikh community to our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of Sikhs to the UK.

Appointment of Sir Roger Scruton

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

All I would say to the hon. Lady—I appreciate that she might not have been in the House at the time—is that Sir Roger previously served as an adviser to the coalition Government on issues of design, with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. He has served before, and I think it is appropriate for him to provide that support again.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is not the only truly illiberal thing to use student union smear tactics to deliberately attack a distinguished philosopher who has written hundreds of thousands of words and do what the Opposition spokesman has done today, which is to take one sentence and then claim that the philosopher is antisemitic? We should read the rest of the sentence, in which this philosopher says:

“People in these networks include many who are rightly suspicious of nationalism, regard nationalism as the major cause of the tragedy of Central Europe”.

Here is a man who has defended George Soros. Why are the Opposition stooping so low as to do this? Why can they not defend freedom of speech?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly cannot answer for the Opposition in relation to this. All I would say is that Sir Roger is a distinguished philosopher. He is a distinguished author on aesthetics—I think uniquely qualified to support our work in designing better, more beautiful communities. Therefore, I look forward to working with him and getting on with that important work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sir Roger Scruton has shown true courage and humanity through some of his journeys, particularly to the east, and that his writings and speeches are actually pretty good—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

They are better than yours, Bob, anyway!

[Bob Stewart]

I have to say that my hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are better than mine. But I will finish my question. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sir Roger Scruton continues to have massive respect for all sectors of our society?

Budget Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I have listened to many Budget speeches but when I listened to this year’s I was taken by surprise, in a rather cheering way. I came here expecting that we were going to hear how the Chancellor had solved the problem of raising some taxation to help pay for the very welcome £200 billion given to the NHS. I sat there listening to him deliver an excellent speech, cutting taxation and increasing public expenditure. It was an open and expansive Budget based on a courageous Budget judgment that I had not seen coming—I welcome that and wish it every success. It was of course based on spending all the unexpected surprise of the extra tax revenues that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts had produced—or had already delivered—and on spending everything anticipated in the forecasts in order to keep us on track to eliminate debt.

I welcome bold decisions, and I hope this one succeeds, but I am afraid I am going to express a little caution, as someone needs to, even in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I have seen many Budgets and the reaction is quite predictable: all my right hon. and hon. Friends have joined in welcoming every piece of good news, as I do. The money for health and social care was very much needed, and I welcome what has been done for small businesses and city centres—I could go on, but my seven minutes does not allow me to cover all the good news in the Budget. But somebody has to express caution, but I do not do so as a party pooper; I am not going in for all the gloom and foreboding of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency. But as the Labour Opposition are in my personal opinion so completely useless on an occasion like this—all they do is greet an expansive and popular Budget by saying, “Oh, it’s nothing compared with the vast sums we would spend in future”—it is probably as well that we do express some caution.

All I would like is for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who I believe is going to wind up the debate, to reassure me that we are proceeding with some care. Many political judgments involve taking risks. Very few political judgments and policy judgments give an obvious answer, which is fine. A courageous Minister takes some of those risks, but they do have to be aware of them and to anticipate what they would do if they started to materialise, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to do that.

The reasons for my reservations are, simply expressed, that the very welcome news about the tax revenues recently may not last. We have had windfall revenues in the past, and nobody quite understands why we have these windfalls now, so I think a little caution is called for before we start anticipating that they are going to carry on in that way.

As for forecasts, I never spent the money in forecasts, because all economic forecasting, at any time, is extremely fallible and extremely difficult. I do not think I know of a time when it has been more impossible than now. I have only seven minutes, so I am not going to be able to dilate about Mr Trump’s trade wars, problems of Chinese debt, the emerging problems in many emerging markets, the reckless nature of the Italian Government they have elected and, above all, the uncertainty of Brexit, which dominates us. All this makes the task of economic forecasting almost impossible, so we should not spend the money it looks as though we might be getting without having at the back of our minds some idea of what we are going to do if it does not work out.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to pour cold water on economic forecasts. What did he think of the Treasury forecast before the referendum which warned that if we voted for Brexit, there would be an

“immediate and profound economic shock”?

[Mr Clarke]

The Treasury took some welcome measures to ease that shock, stepping in with an emergency cut in interest rates and expansionist measures to mitigate the problem. One problem with forecasting is timing. If we get a hard Brexit, I do not think my hon. Friend will be dismissing quite so lightly the forebodings of the Treasury. I agree that some of the leading figures in the remain campaign turned the whole thing into a bit of a farce by talking about Budgets putting up taxes and so on in two or three months’ time, but I did not echo that and nobody else did. Also, it was not as bad as most of the quite dishonest arguments being put forward by the leave campaign about the millions of Turks who were coming here, but I will leave that to one side.

The Brexit deal will have consequences for our immediate economic future. I want a soft Brexit, if we have to leave. I want no new barriers to our trade and investment and no new customs arrangements; I want regulatory convergence and open borders to continue with our major market, but we may not get there—no one knows. I have added in all the other uncertainties in the global economy at the moment. We are all being sustained by an American boom, which may be quite short lived, as these fiscally induced booms usually are. Recession is not impossible in the next two or three years, and we have to make sure, first, that we avoid it and, secondly, that we are prepared for the warning signals when they come.

So I hope I can be persuaded that the Chancellor has retained some firepower in case the economy risks going off, and I hope he will manage expectations. We are all enjoying this Budget, but the key public spending decisions are going to be in the public expenditure round in 2019 and 2020. Nobody should be led to expect that vast sums are necessarily going to be forthcoming then, and we need to manage expectations.

What slightly worried me were what I thought were presentational errors made in the run-up to this Budget. Had I been Chancellor, I would not have agreed that £200 billion for the health service should be announced on an inconsequential date a few months ago and then have been left with the Budget to explain how we pay for it. If we had put the two together, the health service spending would have been the highlight of this Budget, because it is a very welcome and very important decision. The public were braced to pay something towards it. The first reaction is that some other taxpayer should pay, but we could have given ourselves more firepower and maintained our direction on debt by raising some taxes towards it. But they are the only reservations I raise.

Budgets often are popular at first but they are forgotten by Christmas—even mine. What matters is where the economy is in two or three years’ time, and I hope the Chief Secretary will tell me that the Government have not lost sight of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Budget is tactically clever and, indeed, wise, but it may be strategically dangerous. That is where I join the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

Of course, we all have our own priorities for Government spending. I have campaigned for the Ministry of Defence and I support the measures in the Budget for that. There have been local campaigns on potholes, particularly in a rural county such as Lincolnshire. We have been campaigning for more money for schools, and we all welcome the announcements on that.

However, by 2023-24 the Government will be spending another £30 billion a year. Indeed, by the end of the Parliament the Government will take 38% out of the economy, which is exactly what Gordon Brown took out of the economy at the end of his Chancellorship.

I might be the last Gladstonian Liberal left in this place, or indeed one of the few Thatcherites left in it, but I do believe that the way to deal with the economy and provide for everybody is to try and bring down the deficit and start to repay debt. I want to hear from the Chief Secretary when she sums up the debate that we have not reneged on our promise—the Conservative promise—to start repaying debt, and I would like to know from her when she is going to start doing it.

Whatever we spend, the Labour party will of course always promise to spend more, and I was amused that the shadow Chancellor thinks that the rich now earn just a bit more than he earns. We are never going to set the economy right, particularly in the context of Brexit, unless we fix the roof while the sun shines. We do not want that jibe turned on us; we do not want people to say in future “Yes, the economy was doing fairly well, you were creating a record number of jobs—particularly youth jobs—and all these good things were happening and all the prognoses about Brexit were not proved correct, but when the sun was shining, did you fix the roof?” So I want to be assured by the Government that they are going to get this right. Unless we do this, we could be in severe difficulties, because all economies are cyclical.

Frankly, I do not think the main problem facing the economy is Brexit. I think it will be alright on the night; we will sort it, and some deal will be achieved. We will achieve some sort of free trade area. I do not believe that the prophets of doom about Brexit will be proved correct, but I do believe that we have to get the economy right, and that in terms of health spending—I use the national health service, like everybody else—we cannot just bung ever more tens of billions of pounds into it. We have to ensure that there is competence and efficiency in our public services, so we need a good strong, free enterprise, low tax, deregulated Conservative economy.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that he may not take this seriously, and Conservative Members may not take this seriously, but I understand the importance and the significance of this English Parliament sitting in this House of Commons and I will not deride that opportunity. I stand here inviting English Members to get to their feet and to explain passionately and eloquently why they need this opportunity to debate these English-only Bills.

English Members have every right to be outraged that they have not previously had these opportunities. That is why, given that they have this opportunity today, I am fully expecting them to spring to their feet to ensure that this Parliament is properly respected. I will tell you something, Dame Rosie: Scottish National party Members fully respect the right of English Members to speak in their Parliament. We expect to hear speeches full of passion from hon. Members who have this fantastic opportunity in front of them, because we know that the English voice must be heard. It is a voice that demands its right, and today all of England will be hearing from its proud tribunes as they get to their feet in vast numbers to articulately and compellingly put that English voice. I remember why we have this Parliament, and I remember those speeches when we changed Standing Orders so that we could secure this Parliament. Can you remember, Dame Rosie, all these perfidious Scottish Members of Parliament coming down to this Parliament to make sure that that voice was going to be overridden by Caledonian votes; the hordes coming forth off that border to make sure that the outcomes were to be influenced by Scots Members of Parliament. I remember the eloquence with which that was put, why that had to be rejected, why the English Parliament was necessary, and why English votes for English laws had to be an enduring feature of this House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman protests too much. We all know that, deep in his heart, he loves being here. He loves engaging in the Union Parliament; he would be bored stiff in Holyrood.

[Pete Wishart]

I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the first English Member of Parliament to speak in an English-only debate in a Legislative Grand Committee of the quasi-English Parliament who is not from the Scottish National party and is not a member of the Government. Well done to him; he is charting and pioneering a way for all his colleagues now to follow. Speak in your English Parliament and raise your English voice!

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to take that up with my good friend from Na h-Eileanan an Iar, who I have to say I find much more convincing when it comes to some of the great constitutional issues of the day. I am more than persuaded by my hon. Friend’s eloquence.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

So what is in the Bill? What is wrong with it?

[Pete Wishart]

I beg patience from the hon. Gentleman. There is so much to say. I have done my study on the Bill, and I think it is important. I have a list of 425 English towns where the Bill will have an impact—I have everything from Aylesbury all the way through to Witham and Wisbech—and I am going to go through every single one of those towns to speak about how some of the curtilage-related issues are being dealt with. I do not want to leave out any part of England. It is important that no part of England is left behind in these debates, and if English Members are not prepared to speak about their constituencies, it will be left to Scottish National party Members to do it. We will not shirk our responsibility to ensure that the English voice is heard. That is our job today, and I am determined that we will fulfil it.

--- Later in debate ---

Let us think about having a house and using different parts of it for different purposes. That is an important distinction to make. I know that in my house I have bedrooms, kitchens and sitting rooms, so I use my house for different purposes. It is therefore quite right that, when he made the ruling, Denning was quite clear in saying that parts of a house are sometimes used for different purposes. That is an important lesson from a very important man.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to take a leaf out of the book of the Irish nationalists in the 19th century and, by filibustering and talking complete rubbish, bore the Union to death?

[Pete Wishart]

I take great exception to what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is an important Bill; he may not be interested in the words of Denning LJ, but my colleagues and I are. We want to make sure that this House is aware of the weighty views of Denning LJ, whoever he may be.

So there is a general rule. It had been the practice of the Valuation Office Agency that where units of property were contiguous—that means “touching”, I believe—and in the same occupation, they received one rates bill. I think the Government have been really generous in offering examples of how all this might work. That is why, when considering a Bill such as this, it is very important that we take everything into account.

The exceptions are important. The general rule, obviously, is as well—because a general rule is a guiding principle on how we approach these issues. But the exceptions are also important because they could lead to precedents. This is where we start to get into dangerous territory. In elegant legislation, the general rule applies nearly universally. When legislation has a number of exceptions, we start to get into certain territory—I know how difficult it is for the Clerks to design legislation with too many exceptions. We have to be careful when designing legislation. When the generalities of rules and what we want to achieve in legislation tend to be universal in concept, it is important to understand exceptions and all the other things that may influence future legislation by becoming precedent.