Council Tax

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We deserve an apology, but I doubt that we will get one. Before 2010, it was vanishingly rare for councils to fall into serious financial difficulty. Since then, nine councils have been affected in just 14 years. There is a pattern here. For too long, the Conservative Government not only failed to carry out their duty to local government, but hollowed out frontline services and crashed the economy. We are turning that around with the support that we are providing to local government in the Budget. We will set out more details in the local government settlement early next year, as I have mentioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister will know, although we do not have council tax per se in Northern Ireland, the pressures on our family finances are on a par with those on the UK mainland. The Government need to be clear about just how much further the finances of average families will be stretched, because this is a very worrying trend. What extra help can families, especially disabled families, expect to receive this year?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which relates to an earlier one. I think that, in the urgent question, the Opposition failed to account for the various other sources of support that we are providing for families. We are continuing the household support fund—that is £1 billion. There is a £1 billion uplift for special educational needs. There is UK shared prosperity funding of £900 million—the list goes on, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the specific conditions in Northern Ireland further, I am more than happy to pass on that request to the Local Government Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said in my original response, we recently consulted on how the planning system could do more to support the creation of healthy places. I will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care when considering next steps, as well as engaging with local authorities. As I said in answer to a previous question, my Department is analysing responses to the NPPF consultation with a view to issuing a Government response before the end of the year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I always try to be helpful to the Minister, and I thank him for his answer. In Northern Ireland, the steps we have taken on fast food outlets include close liaison with school principals to ensure that pupils do not access carry-out food, and addressing the issue of litter, which is the responsibility of fast food outlets. Perhaps the Minister might want to contact the relevant Northern Ireland Department to gauge what has worked for us.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is as helpful as ever. I always look at the experience of other nations on planning reform. I recently met the Housing Minister from the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and I will happily contact him about this specific point to see what lessons we can learn.

Leasehold Reform and New Homes

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). I am very glad that she mentioned the question of a share of freehold: we pushed for that in Committee, and it is one of several measures necessary to pave the way for the commonhold future that so many of us in the House want to see.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate, on opening it as compellingly as he did and on the persuasive argument he made yesterday on Report on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. He spoke in support of greater ambition in addressing the many inequities of the leasehold system. Although I disagree with his assertion in yesterday’s debate that that Bill is our one chance to end the arcane and discriminatory practices that leaseholders and residential freeholders are at the mercy of, it certainly represents our only chance to do so in this Parliament. On the Labour Benches, we wholeheartedly agree that the Government should go further than the Bill does.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Those contributions, like yesterday’s debate, highlight that there is widespread support across the House for ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform. Once again, I want to put on record the thanks of those on the Labour Benches to all those who have campaigned tirelessly, often over many decades, for an overhaul of leasehold law. In particular, I thank the leaseholders and residential freeholders who have resolutely refused to accept the inequities of the flawed system they are so often at the mercy of, and who have taken it on themselves to vigorously make the case for change.

In responding to the debate, I do not intend to revisit yesterday’s many principled arguments and exchanges on leasehold reform in general. Instead, I will simply provide some further detailed thoughts on some of the specific issues that have been raised this afternoon, starting with the management of private and mixed-tenure estates. The distinct set of problems faced by residential freeholders on those estates with charges and fees is well known and well understood. The Government have publicly recognised for at least six years that it is a very serious problem, and we welcome their decision to use the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to introduce statutory protections for freehold homeowners that are equivalent to those enjoyed by long leaseholders in respect of service charges.

As the Minister will recall, in Committee we pressed for specific changes to strengthen the new estate management regulatory framework, not least to rectify some of the obvious deficiencies of the existing leasehold regulation regime that it mirrors. We hope that the Government will give them further consideration. In our view, of particular importance is the need for a right-to-manage regime for freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates. It is not enough merely to give residential freeholders on those estates the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges and to hold estate management companies to account. They should enjoy the right to take over the management functions on their estate, and we believe there is appetite among freehold homeowners to exert more direct control in that way. In yesterday’s debate on Report, the Minister made it clear that the Government understand the strength of feeling on the issue and are considering it further. Will the Minister provide a little more clarity today and tell us whether the Government are seriously considering tabling amendments in the other place to provide parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage?

As the hon. Member for Harborough rightly argued yesterday, ensuring that residential freeholders on existing private and mixed-tenure estates are better protected is one thing, but reducing the prevalence of the arrangements is another. The Government must act to do the latter, as that is the best way of addressing the root causes of so many of the problems that residential freeholders face. However, we believe it would be wrong simply to force local authorities to adopt such estates without corresponding changes to ensure that the public infrastructure and amenities built on them are built to a determined, adoptable standard, so that financially hard-pressed councils are not forced to repair and maintain poor quality roads and common services at great cost. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some assurances—we touched on this on Committee—that the Government are actively exploring the mix of legislative and policy changes that will be required to make progress on both of those fronts, adoption and common adoptable standards.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise that I could not be here when I was supposed to be, Mrs Harris. I was meeting some people from Hong Kong on issues of human rights and freedom. I thank the shadow Minister for letting me intervene. Leasehold reform has been the subject of much discussion, such as in yesterday’s debate in the main Chamber. Does he not agree that there is a real need for urgent leasehold reform? It affects so many of our constituents—from young people, who are starting their lives, to older people, who are trying to downsize. We must make this change, especially at a time when every penny counts for most people, whether they are young or old.

Vessel Emissions: River Thames

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a great frustration to him, as it was to me, that the developer would not listen and commit to plans for a clean, green terminal and shore-to-ship power.

Nevertheless, it was right that the proposals as set out were scrapped, and residents very much welcomed that. I also welcomed Criterion Capital’s confirmation that the proposals had been scrapped. However, the final demise of the terminal does not mean that the problem of toxic emissions relating to activity on the River Thames has been solved for those living in my constituency. The issue remains of emissions from other vessels using the river and, in particular for my constituents who live in west Greenwich, the emissions from the large number of cruise liners that dock at Greenwich pier each year.

In the time available I will argue that the Government must do more to address that problem and that the best means of doing so is by overhauling the fragmented arrangements in place for regulating the Thames and by establishing a coherent and effective emissions control framework for the river that will improve air quality for those communities that live beside it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The problem of emissions in London and on the Thames in particular is clear, but emissions throughout the United Kingdom are an important issue as well. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is important for the Lord Mayor of London, the Port of London Authority, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to come together to set emission reduction targets and to ensure that they are achieved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a huge number of organisations have some regulatory role or other with regards to the river. As I will come on to argue, we need to bring some coherence and simplification to that by means of a single regulator for the Thames.

I do not need to spend much time outlining why air pollution is such a serious problem. There is growing awareness among the public about the fact that the toxic and illegal levels of air pollution across our country are an invisible hazard that contributes to the ill health and premature deaths of tens of thousands of people each year, including thousands of Londoners. There is a growing realisation that air pollution constitutes a public health crisis. The public are perhaps less aware of the fact that shipping emissions, in the form of nitrogen oxide and dioxide, as well as sulphur, are a major source of that pollution. Indeed, if concerted action is not taken, by 2020 shipping will be the biggest single emitter of air pollution in Europe.

As things stand, emissions from vessels on the River Thames are not the most significant contributor to air pollution in London, but their contribution is still significant. In the absence of concerted action, as road and other emissions sources are steadily reduced—for a variety of reasons—emissions from the river will account for a steadily higher proportion of London’s total. Crucially, emissions from the River Thames are necessarily concentrated in riparian parts of London such as Greenwich and Woolwich, which already suffer from incredibly poor air quality, in particular in hotspots such as east Greenwich or Charlton in the vicinity of the A102. That is why more must be done to bear down on emissions generated by vessels using the river, a huge variety of which do so, each and every day.

I have already mentioned that the primary concern in the corner of south-east London that I represent is the extremely large cruise liners that berth at Greenwich ship pier. According to the Port of London Authority, the body responsible for vessels mooring at the pier, 12 cruise liners berthed at Greenwich last year and a total of 14 are set to do so this year. The Minister probably has some sense of the size of vessel in question. They are huge. When berthed, such liners are, in essence, floating hotels and are required—in the absence of the shore-to-ship power for which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I were campaigning—to run their engines in order to serve their onboard guests.

I am no shipping expert, but my understanding is that an average cruise liner running its auxiliary engines while berthed burns approximately 700 litres of diesel fuel an hour, the equivalent of 688 idling heavy goods vehicles. By any account, the emissions they generate are considerable.

All such ships must of course comply with international emissions standards. Those are complex, with different standards for nitrogen oxides and sulphur, as well as with greenhouse gases at different tiers, but in general terms they require emissions from vessels to be equivalent to burning 0.1% sulphur fuel or less. That sounds stringent, but those standards need to be set in context. A limit of 0.1% sulphur fuel or less is more than 100 times the amount of sulphur permitted in road diesel.

It is true that river vessels are subject to progressively tightening emissions standards internationally, but it is also the case that new or forthcoming regulatory measures, such as the introduction of the North sea emissions control area from 1 January 2021, are not particularly ambitious. They will not apply to onboard generators used when a vessel is berthed; to vessels built before the date that the area comes into force; or to existing vessels that replace their engines with non-identical ones or that install additional ones. Given that vessels tend to have significantly longer lifespans than road vehicles, the impact of such measures on fleet renewal is likely to be minimal.

Personally, I do not believe that the solution to this problem is to ban all cruise liners from entering London. However, I am convinced that we require more stringent emissions standards for vessels using the River Thames, including cruise liners of the kind that berth at Greenwich Pier, than what is required now or will be required in future years by way of international shipping standards, so that the problem does not exacerbate already poor local air quality and adversely impact on the health of Londoners, in particular those living in developments close to the shoreline.

The barrier to more effective emission standards for vessels on the Thames is the fact that responsibility for regulation of the river is utterly fragmented—that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and no existing regulator has a clear responsibility for improving air quality or reducing emissions overall. At present, a wide range of organisations either have responsibility for regulating different classes and uses of vessels on the Thames or have commercial influence on them through ownership or tendering. They include the Port of London Authority, the Environment Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, riparian boroughs with boundaries that lie in the river itself, such as Greenwich, and Transport for London. By my calculation, there are more than 20 such organisations with some type of regulatory function.

The inherent conflicts of interest further complicate the problem of regulatory fragmentation. The Port of London Authority, for example, is under pressure to play its part in improving air quality in London and has developed a groundbreaking air quality strategy to that end. It is investing in a comprehensive air quality monitoring programme around Greenwich ship tier and is looking into the practicalities, costs and benefits that shore power might bring to its London moorings. Yet it receives income for the duration of each vessel’s stay at its moorings, including the large cruise liners that berth at Greenwich pier, and it has no formal responsibility to regulate the emissions generated by the vessels to which it issues licences.

That is not a criticism of the PLA or any other organisation with some form of regulatory role on the Thames or commercial influence. In fact, I am confident that each of them is doing as much as it feasibly can within the current framework. For example, Transport for London is developing a pier strategy that could incentivise the use of vessels with high emissions standards, and has led by example by ensuring that the Woolwich ferry service now has upgraded stage V, hybrid vessels, fitted with additional post-exhaust treatment to reduce emissions and an innovative docking system whereby new vehicles do not have to run their engines at berth.

Another example is the Mayor of London, who has allocated £500,000 from his air quality fund to retrofit 11 vessels, and commits in his transport strategy to support proposals to ensure that new and refurbished wharves, piers and canal moorings generate renewable power onsite.

The efforts undertaken by individual organisations, however, are necessarily piecemeal. They are not enough to adequately bear down on harmful emissions generated by vessels across the river as a whole, and they are not an adequate response to the issue of the most concern to those I represent: emissions from cruise liners berthing at Greenwich pier.

Two things are needed to tackle air pollution on the River Thames, alongside the Government’s wider measures for the UK as a whole. I hope the Minister, her officials and her colleagues in other Departments will give them serious consideration. The first is the establishment of a single overarching regulator for the Thames and London waterways, to replace the present fragmented regime. The second is the introduction of a coherent and effective London-wide emissions control framework on the river, to replace the patchwork of diffuse and overlapping responsibilities currently in place.

The current regulatory set-up for vessels on the river is not only complex and opaque but simply inadequate to reduce shipping emissions at the scale and pace required. Let me give a practical example of why that is the case. The various organisations that have responsibility for regulating different classes and uses of vessels on the river must accept each other’s licences in certain circumstances. That means that any positive action by one organisation with regulatory responsibility can easily be undermined by another. It is a classic collective action problem. The PLA’s green tariff, which has been moderately successful at places such as Tilbury, will never work as effectively as a coherent London-wide framework for emissions standards on the river, because its impact can easily be undermined by the behaviour of less proactive organisations.

The situation cries out for a coherent and consistent approach. Replacing the current multi-regulator system with a single overarching one, either by creating a new regulator or by empowering an existing one such as the Port of London Authority, would increase transparency and accountability. It would ensure the consistent application of standards that we do not have at present and, for that reason, it would increase investment in emissions reductions technologies and infrastructure, and in cleaner vessels by operators. It would also reduce bureaucracy as it would necessarily entail a reduction in the number of enforcement and licensing authorities. That new system would require primary legislation but, assuming that the Government are still committed to introducing an environment Bill in the next Session of Parliament, it could easily be achieved by means of that proposed legislation.

I do not pretend to have a detailed blueprint of precisely what powers such a regulator would have; it might simply be authorised to set minimum emissions limits for the Thames that differ from those set internationally by the International Maritime Organisation. It could oversee and enforce a system much like the ultra low emission zone, where standards are set and non-complaint vessels are not banned but simply deterred from using the Thames or incentivised to upgrade by means of appropriate charging structures.

It is important that the Government recognise the case for reform and act. It is right that plans for a polluting Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal have been scrapped for good. However, the demise of the terminal proposal does not mean that the problem of toxic emissions generated by vessels on the Thames has been solved. In the current situation, Londoners who live near, travel on, or work on or close to the river are not adequately protected. My constituents are not protected from air pollution generated by vessels on the Thames, particularly those living in west Greenwich, who must live with emissions from the scores of cruise liners that berth at Greenwich pier each year.

I recognise that the Government’s focus to date has been on tackling shipping emissions at an international level. However, I urge the Minister to work in partnership with the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly to give London the means to solve this problem by overhauling the fragmented regulatory arrangements that are currently in place, and by working to introduce a single regulator for the Thames that can oversee and enforce stringent emissions standards. Improving the air quality on and around our capital’s river is an essential part of addressing the public health crisis we face. When it comes to tackling air pollution in London, the River Thames cannot be an afterthought.

Woolwich Barracks

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I believe that it is not right for three main reasons.

The first is that I question why the Department’s approach to Woolwich station has altered so dramatically over such a short period. It is worth recalling that it was only in 2009, in the defence estate strategy that preceded this recent one, that Woolwich station was designated a core site. Sadly, no detailed justification for that designation was given at the time, so it is impossible to know the detailed reasoning that underpinned it, but it seems reasonable to assume that there were solid strategic grounds for it.

As a core site, Woolwich station has been the recipient of significant investment over recent years. The Woolwich development project announced in 2009 provided for new and refurbished accommodation. A new, purpose- built, state-of-the-art equestrian training facility and accommodation centre was built to accommodate the King’s Troop following its transfer from St John’s Wood in February 2012. Even now, funding is in the pipeline to comprehensively remediate and reinstate the King’s Troop external exercise area on Woolwich common, following its use in the 2012 Olympic games.

I simply ask the Minister, what has changed about Woolwich in the past few years to so fundamentally alter the thinking of officials in his Department in relation to the future use of the site and to license the Government to write off the significant investment that has been ploughed into it over the past few years? It will strike many of my constituents as little more than an asset-stripping exercise driven by an analysis of rising land values in London rather than an exercise driven by the requirements of our defence estate.

The second reason relates to the first. I am not entirely convinced that the strategic case for selling off Woolwich barracks is as watertight as has been presented. In the correspondence we have exchanged over recent weeks, the Minister has assured me that the Department’s estate optimisation strategy was formulated with military advice provided by each of the front-line commands. I have no reason to question that assurance, but I do question whether the advice received was sufficiently wide in scope and, specifically, whether the Department, along with other Departments, has assessed the value of the site as a strategic resilience location outside zone 1.

Our security services have had incredible success in foiling terrorist attacks on the British mainland, but the threat to the UK from terrorism remains severe. Last night’s tragic events in Berlin are a timely reminder, if one were needed, that we can never be complacent. Lord Harris’s recently published independent review into London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident makes it clear that, while the involvement of the military in the event of a prolonged attack or a move to the critical threat level was once seen as a last resort, it is now integral to the planning process. In such a scenario, the military could now be deployed under Operation Temperer, which would allow for the mobilisation of up to 5,000 troops to increase the operational capacity and capability of specialist counter-terrorism and armed police. If they were called on, those troops would require accommodation, and there is a case for looking at Woolwich—as a strategic location outside zone 1 and close to the River Thames—as a site that can provide that necessary resilience. While I do not expect the Minister to comment publicly on such a sensitive matter, I would urge him to satisfy himself on this point by looking again at whether there is strategic value in retaining Woolwich barracks as a resilience location in response to a major terrorist incident or a comparable civil emergency.

The third and final reason is that the closure of the barracks will have a detrimental impact on my constituents and on a local community whose very history and identity are intertwined with our armed forces.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a former member of the Royal Artillery and having done my training at Woolwich barracks for two weeks before I joined the Territorial Army. I remember the importance of not only the camp but the museum. We have lost the museum, unfortunately. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate because this is an important matter. Does he agree that we need to retain the barracks for the core reason of looking after the MOD, looking after the Army, and ensuring that we have it there for the future? The future is uncertain, and for that reason we need Woolwich barracks.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. and, I believe, gallant Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. This is a unique site and there is good reason, given the risks of an uncertain future, to retain it. He will know that the collection that was formerly at the Firepower museum in Woolwich has been moved to Larkhill, where I know that, albeit in a different location, it will be cherished and valued. Its collection includes the many medals that have been awarded to the Gunners for outstanding acts of bravery.

Human Rights (Eritrea)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Matthew Pennycook

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The methodology of the Danish Government’s report has been questioned. It remains the basis for the Danish Government’s guidance, but our Government should continue to review our own guidance to ensure that we are not refusing asylum to people who are genuinely being persecuted.

Most Eritreans who flee end up in neighbouring countries such as Sudan and Ethiopia, but many make the dangerous trek north towards the Maghreb and the Sinai peninsula in the hope of finding sanctuary in Europe. In doing so, each must evade: capture by their own security forces, who operate a shoot-to-kill policy against those leaving without permission; violence and extortion at the hands of desert gangs; death from dehydration in the Sahara; detention in Libya or Israel; and the lethal risks of crossing the Mediterranean. What dread leads so many, not just adults, but thousands of unaccompanied minors, to risk everything to leave their homeland behind? Words such as “tyranny”, “oppression” and “cruelty” are regularly used to describe conditions within all manner of distasteful regimes across the globe, to the point where sometimes they risk becoming stale with overuse. Yet if anything, those words fall short when applied to Eritrea under the rule of President Isaias Afwerki.

Isaias’s Eritrea is regularly described as “Africa’s North Korea”. That is a hackneyed phrase but in this instance the comparison is pardonable, because ruthless repression is the norm for those living under the rule of this isolated, hermetic and authoritarian regime. It is a far cry from what so many Eritreans fought for, heroically and for decades, and from the hopes of those who supported the struggle for liberation. Instead of democracy and the rule of law, Eritreans are ruled by a culture of fear and absolute obedience: fear that they or their classmates will be sent to carry out national service in a remote location for an unknown number of years; fear that a trusted co-worker who yesterday openly expressed an opinion may not turn up at work tomorrow; fear that a friend arrested arbitrarily will be incarcerated in a vastly overcrowded metal container or a simple hole dug in the desert ground, with little prospect of release; and fear that a disappeared family member might never be seen again.

There have been no elections since 1993, and no independent press since a Government clampdown in 2001. We have seen the pervasive and ongoing restriction of all freedoms—movement, expression and association. People have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, with no fair trials or no trials at all; indefinite compulsory military conscription; forced labour; and torture, including widespread sexual violence against women and girls. That is the situation in Eritrea today.

An extensive and detailed report published in June by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights describes, in horrifying detail, a siege state where control is absolute and where

“systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations”

are being committed. It says that these violations

“may constitute crimes against humanity”.

The crimes taking place today in Eritrea add themselves to old, but not forgotten, and still raw, abuses. Politicians, journalists, faith leaders and business owners who once proudly set out to build a prosperous post-independence future for their country instead find themselves languishing in one of the country’s numerous detention centres—or they have died there, suffering like thousands of ordinary citizens punished for refusing an order, being a member of the wrong religious domination or expressing sympathy with the wrong person.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene before this debate. Is he aware that since 2002, when the Government in effect banned all but three denominations, thousands of Christians from unregistered Churches have been arrested and detained indefinitely? Does he share my concern that 13 years later not only are the Eritrean Government continuing this campaign of arrest, but followers of registered religious communities also suffer maltreatment?