Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I completely agree: it is absolutely urgent for the people living in those homes whose lives are on hold, but it is also important for the Exchequer. If the Chancellor’s announcements do fuel demand for buying housing, that is stymied by the fact that so many people are stuck in homes that are unsaleable and worth nothing, so they are mortgage prisoners. The whole supply system is not working and the demand system is being fuelled in the wrong direction. We have seen homes in my constituency that were being sold at just below the last threshold for this.

My Committee has looked at the Government’s housing policies over many years now. One million new homes in England were promised between 2015 and 2020 and 500,000 more by the end of 2022. Even taking into account the pandemic, we saw, for example, the starter homes project fail completely after nearly £200 million was spent on land remediation alone, with £2.3 billion in total set aside for that in the 2015 spending review. Yet this did not happen because the Government did not even manage to enact the secondary legislation necessary to get it off the ground. Five years later, they finally announced that it was the end of the starter homes project and introduced First Homes, a discount for first-time buyers, and now we are seeing a loan guarantee on 95% mortgages. It is a very muddled policy. I cannot yet see who will benefit, and we will be looking at this in detail.

On net zero and the environment, the Government are setting big targets, but our detailed work in the Public Accounts Committee raises many concerns. This is on top of failures on the green deal, the privatisation of the green investment bank, three competitions for carbon capture and storage—one more was recently announced, but so far the first three have failed—and real inertia on developing proper, long-term commitments to really tackling climate change.

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

rose—

[Meg Hillier]

I will not give way as I have already taken two interventions.

It is easy to make announcements; it is much harder to get the system to deliver on them. There is a will in this House, I think, to deliver on this, but the Government have to stop making cheap headlines.

On jobs, only one in 100 young people aged 16 to 24 is benefiting from kickstart. Again, it is a nice headline, but unless it delivers for our constituents, it is not working. We need to act now on making sure that further education is properly funded so that it can plan ahead as, hopefully, we come out of lockdown and into more normal life, and make sure that people are able to be reskilled.

Finally, I welcome the movement—as far as I have read the detail, which is not in full yet—on visas for tech entrepreneurs. This has been a brake on progress in Shoreditch in my constituency. However, we have young people in this country who were brought up in the UK, for whom it is their home and the only country they know, and they are struggling to buy citizenship at over £1,000 apiece, because families cannot afford it. They may pay for citizenship for the main householder, but not for the family. This is something that I feel is viscerally unjust. We have these talented people in our communities, in our constituencies, in our country, who are essentially British but priced out of citizenship. So if we are going to have visas for tech entrepreneurs at an easy rate, why not do that for the young people already in our country who are willing, able and capable of contributing?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As a northern businessperson, I was very pleased with the Budget statement—it was pro-business and pro-north. It was also an honest assessment of where we are today. I was quite astounded—perhaps I should not have been—by the response from the Leader of the Opposition, which reminded me of what Churchill said:

“Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.”

That is what private enterprise is, yet all the Leader of the Opposition talked about was public services. Important though they are, this Budget was about the recovery from covid, which is critical. We cannot have the public services without the generation of wealth, jobs and taxes. That is how we pay for public services, so it was absolutely right that that was the focus of the Budget.

I am pleased with many of the things in the Budget for the north, including freeports in Teesside, Treasury North in Darlington and the UK investment bank in Leeds, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) campaigned for heavily. Also, the ongoing business support is very important to the hospitality businesses of Thirsk and Malton.

We need to be honest, and I know the Chancellor will be when we have got over the covid crisis, about our future spending challenges. Because of this country’s demographics—we have an ageing population and a reducing fertility rate—we are going to see more and more pressure on fewer and fewer taxpayers, particularly to sustain pensions, healthcare and social care. That is true to such an extent that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility our debt to GDP ratio, which is currently 100%, will be 314% by 2060 if we do not do anything about our tax system. In many ways, the Budget was a short-term approach to recovery, which is absolutely the right approach, but we need to think differently about the solutions going forward.

I do not want to see a bigger state or higher taxation, so it is a difficult conundrum. One solution that I would like to see is an adult social care premium, which would tackle one of those cost pressures. It is not a tax any more than motor insurance is a tax; it is a small amount of money that people put aside for a rainy day. It is done on a mandatory basis and will solve one of the key problems.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, we need to make sure that we set a fair and level playing field and stable framework for businesses. Because of the threats from Amazon and the like, one way we can do that is to scrap business rates altogether and replace them with a small increase in VAT. That would be a simple solution to the problem and set that fair and level playing field for many SMEs in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the hon. Lady knows that we are moving away dramatically and at speed from UK Export Finance supporting fossil fuel exploration around the world, but, of course, hydrocarbons remain a significant industry in Scotland and many other places. In so far as there are legitimate contracts that are at risk of being frustrated, we cannot do that. I really think that her criticism of the Government is absurd. Look at the overall record and ambition of this Government; this is the first country in the developed world to set a target of net zero by 2050. I know that when she is being less polemical, she has had some kind words to say about the Government’s programme, and I certainly support her in that.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our future immigration policy will welcome law abiding citizens of other countries to our country, and that those who come to this country and are subsequently convicted of serious crimes, including rape and murder, should expect to be removed from this country to keep our citizens safe?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed; I was astounded to see that 42 Opposition Members wrote to the Home Secretary opposing the deportation of foreign national criminals, while the leader of the Labour party maintained his characteristic delphic silence on the matter.

Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic reveals a series of calamitous errors in how decisions were made and taxpayers’ money was wasted. It is imperative that Members have the opportunity to debate its findings.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Many important points were made. Time does not permit me to mention every contribution, but I will highlight my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who rightly raised the Carillion procurement scandal and asked why lessons do not seem to have been learned. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) spoke from her direct experience of the consequences of procurement failure for social care staff working on the frontline. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) gave the powerful example of Arco, a world-leading PPE supplier in her constituency that was ignored by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised her important work highlighting the ongoing national scrubs crisis.

The Opposition recognise that, when faced with a national emergency on the scale of the global covid-19 pandemic, the Government needed to act quickly to procure goods and services, but the National Audit Office found that, even allowing for accelerated processes, proper checks and controls were not carried out. The report states that

“procurement processes established by the cross-government PPE team enabled PPE to be purchased quickly, but some procurements were carried out before all key controls were put in place.”

Seventy-one contracts, with a total value of £1.5 billion, were awarded to suppliers before proper company checks were put in place. Even worse, some contracts were awarded only after the work had been completed, significantly increasing the risk of budget overspend and poor performance, and more than half of the £17.3 billion awarded to suppliers was awarded directly with no competition.

The report highlights the Government’s failure to set out clearly why they chose a particular supplier or how risks from a lack of competition were identified and mitigated. The National Audit Office highlighted that that was critical

“to ensure public trust in the fairness of the procurement process.”

It is clear that public confidence has been hugely damaged by this debacle.

We have contracts awarded without key controls, awarded sometimes after the work had already been completed, and often with no competition and without adequate documentation. On top of that, we find that the Government again and again awarded contracts not to trusted long-term suppliers of PPE with a track record of delivery but to companies with strong links to friends and donors of the Tory party—chaos facilitating cronyism.

With the huge gaps in transparency and company checks identified by the National Audit Office, the Government have serious questions to answer about the back door VIP special procurement route. How did it operate? Who had access? What weight was given to the individual making a referral through the route in the award of a contract? How many contracts were awarded through the VIP route without competition, company checks or adequate justification?

Reputable British firms with a track record of delivery who wanted to help at a time of desperate need such as Seren Plus—a long-term supplier of PPE to the NHS—were left to watch incredulously as inexperienced firms failed to deliver. Ayanda Capital received £156 million for PPE that could not be used. PestFix, with barely any money in the bank and no track record of providing PPE, received £160 million of taxpayers’ money, and the Health Secretary’s pub landlord received £30 million to provide vials, despite no track record in providing medical supplies.

The real bottom line in all this is that frontline staff in our national health service and social care, putting their lives on the line every single day and in desperate need of protection, did not receive the PPE they needed for weeks and weeks. We watched the heartbreaking footage of social care workers with no protection, hospital staff reusing masks and gowns, while the Government flushed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money down the drain, employing firms with no track record, which unsurprisingly proved unable to deliver.

With procurement happening so quickly under emergency measures, the Government should have been creating more transparency, opening up to greater scrutiny, so that the public could have confidence in the pandemic response. Instead, the opposite appears to be the case. Again and again, the Government shrugged their shoulders at revelations of crony contracts and failed to make any commitment—

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

The hon. Lady is making a very serious allegation when she talks about cronyism, implying corruption. On the basis that the NAO report found no evidence that Ministers were involved in procurement decisions, at whom is she directing those allegations?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my former colleague on the Select Committee, for his intervention. Cronyism and corruption are different in law. I am talking about cronyism. The important point that was made by the National Audit Office and reiterated in the debate today is that, when the Government have a scenario where normal rules are bypassed because of an emergency, it is incumbent on the Government to have absolute transparency on connections, conflicts of interest, routes taken and the reasons for decisions being made. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that the NAO has found the Government wanting. What is lacking from the Government is appropriate contrition and an appropriately transparent response to those allegations that the NAO has made.

Covid-19 Update

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I doubt we will get one in time, but the point is registered.

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

From what the Prime Minister said, I have worked out that the entirety of Thirsk and Malton is in the lowest tier of risk, and I am very keen to keep it there. Now that we have data that is super-local data, can we have restrictions that are super-local? Rather than looking at things on the county-wide level of North Yorkshire, where we have varying levels of incidence, can we look at them at a district council level, as Hambleton and Ryedale, which have very low levels of transmission?

Covid-19: Strategy

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I urge Members to speed up their questions, and certainly the Prime Minister to speed up the replies?

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his approach to starting to reopen the economy while keeping the virus under control. Testing and tracing is key to the way forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could reduce the time taken to get test results back from the current five days to as little as 24 hours, it would make that approach even more effective?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right: speed of turnaround is crucial in improving our testing. We have done 100,000 tests again yesterday, I am pleased to say, but clearly pace of turnaround is absolutely critical for getting up to where we need to be—200,000, as he knows, by the end of the month, and then a much more ambitious programme thereafter.

Local Government Finance

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is very worrying, and I hope the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will stand up against it. Those of us who have been a Member of this House for some time will remember that the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lord Pickles, was only too keen to offer up the maximum cuts from his Department, meaning that local government in England was the part of the public sector that was clobbered the hardest.

It is even worse than the 32% fall over five years because, since the Conservative party entered government in 2010, funding for local councils has been slashed by more than half. We have all seen the consequences of that neglect: the unrepaired roads, the uncollected bins, the cuts to adult learning and the closed children’s centres. Under Conservative leadership, almost a fifth of our libraries have been forced to close because of cuts to funding. One of the previous Labour Government’s greatest achievements, the Sure Start programme, has had its funding slashed in half, forcing as many as 1,000 Sure Start children’s centres to close since 2010.

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

The hon. Gentleman is worried about the impact on the local authorities he mentioned because they cannot raise as much money through council tax. Does he accept that the shire districts get much less local government funding, so their council tax has to be much higher? It is only right that we consider a fairer funding formula, so that everybody pays a fair amount and receives a fair amount.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will come on to the specific point of funding adult social care.

I will happily provide the statistics, but Liverpool, Knowsley, Blackpool, Kingston upon Hull and Middlesbrough are the five most deprived local authorities in England. Since 2010, Blackpool has lost 21% of its funding; Knowsley 25%; Liverpool 23%; Kingston upon Hull 22%; and Middlesbrough 21%. A 5% maximum increase in council tax in each of those local authorities will raise nothing like their loss of grant funding. That is not fair. If the fair funding review is carried out in the way that the Local Government Association suggests it might be, those most deprived communities will see even greater reductions in funding, and we know they will never be able to plug the gap through council tax alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for not only local government across the country, but that great city of Birmingham, fighting the devastation that has befallen that great city. On the LGA’s own statistics, a further £48 million in adult social care funding could be removed from Birmingham to add to the devastation that has already hit his city. That is why the fair funding review is so unfair and wrong.

According to the King’s Fund—so this is not coming just from the LGIU—by the end of the next decade the number of older people who need adult social care support is predicted to increase to 4.1 million. That is piling even more cost pressures on our local councils, which is why the LGIU also highlights the increase in financial pressures on children’s services, as adult social care is only one part of the very costly equation that is people-based services—the services that councils, by law and by right, have to provide. Mrs Smith, on any street of any town in any shire, thinks that her council tax increases are going towards ever-reducing bin services, and she sees parks not being maintained and libraries closing. That is because she never sees the impact on adult social care and children’s services.

On children’s services, the LGIU argues that councils are no longer able to shield vulnerable children from the worst of the budgetary pressures that councils are facing. More than one in three councils said their inability to protect vulnerable children was their biggest concern. We know that there are unprecedented demand pressures on children’s services. The number of children in care has hit a 10-year high, but without the funding to support that increase in demand.

From 2009 to 2019, the number of section 47 inquiries—that is, where a local authority believes that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm—has increased by 139%. The Local Government Association warns that children’s services alone are facing a £3.5 billion funding gap by 2025. It is these pressures on people-based services that are pushing many councils towards the cliff edge, and sticking plasters will no longer suffice. The Minister will no doubt say that he gave £1 billion to be shared by adult social care, children’s services and provision for NHS winter pressures. That is not enough.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We have discussed this before, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have cross-party talks on adult social care? One of the Select Committee’s key recommendations was that adult social care funding should be removed entirely from local authority pressures and we should adopt a German-style social insurance system. Does he agree that we should have cross-party discussions and that that should be one of the options on the table?

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I have said in previous debates, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with proposals. We are still waiting for the Green Paper promised in the last Parliament and the Parliament before that. The fact of the general election is that the hon. Gentleman’s party is in power and it is incumbent on Ministers to come to this House to explain how they are going to try to resolve this crisis in adult social care.

We will sit down with Ministers. We have our own ideas. We will share ideas with the Government. We will come to some kind of consensus if we can. But of course the history on this is not great; I remember the former Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, having cross-party talks in the dying days of the Labour Government, and it looked as though we were getting agreement with the shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—until the general election came, and then there were posters everywhere saying, “Labour’s death tax” and “Andy Burnham’s death tax”. We have to move away from that and tackle this issue seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted what has been happening over the past 10 years, which is that local government as a sector has taken the biggest cuts. Added to that, Departments might have to find another 5%, and no matter what the Minister says in his reply about levelling up and making promises to northern councils, it will be very difficult, because this Government and the coalition Government had a clear policy to move funding from more deprived to more affluent areas.

Interestingly, the Minister said in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) that he was here because he wanted to make the point that he was the Northern Powerhouse Minister. With one sole exception, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) has been the only new Conservative northern MP who has sat through this debate. We had a brief interlude from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who stayed for about 10 minutes, and I did spot briefly the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). If this new army—supposedly—of new Conservative MPs want to argue for their region, they should be doing it in here and they are not setting a very good example. I will work with them to argue why the Government got it wrong on local government finances over the past 10 years.

It is not just me saying that: the National Audit Office and the Centre for Cities have clearly demonstrated that money has moved from northern councils—the more deprived areas—to the more leafy suburbs in the south-east. That has not been done by accident; it has been deliberate design and policy. If the Minister levels up the system and makes it fair, I will fully support that, but that would be very unpopular among some of his colleagues in the south-east.

We have a situation now, after the last 10 years, where County Durham has lost £224 million in grant. Core spending per dwelling in County Durham stands at £1,727, whereas the figure for Surrey is £2,004, so it is clear that deprived areas such as County Durham are getting less core spending, and that has been deliberately designed by this Government.

The cover for that is the so-called “fairer funding formula”. That is complete nonsense, because it is fundamentally flawed in two respects and it is a disguise to use the word “fairer”. It starts from the premise that the needs of every single area and council are the same, when that is clearly not the case; I will give examples later. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East highlighted, it also works on the basis that each council has the ability to raise local finance on an equal basis; I am sorry, but they don’t.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will give way in a minute.

They don’t, because, for example, in County Durham over 50% of our properties are in band A, so, no matter how much we put up the council tax, we will not—unlike more affluent areas, with larger numbers of Ds, Cs and even Gs in some cases—be able to bridge the gap that has resulted from the withdrawal of core funding.

[Mr Jones]

I give way first to my hon. Friend, as I always call him—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imply that somehow shire counties are getting a better deal from central Government in terms of spending allocation than metropolitan areas, but that is absolutely the reverse of the truth. The reality is that the shire counties get less than half as much as the metropolitan areas allocated from central funds, and that is why our council tax is, in some areas, twice as much.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but I have to say that in the hon. Gentleman’s area, North Yorkshire, the ability to raise council taxes is a lot better than in County Durham and others. I am not talking about a metropolitan council; I am talking about County Durham. In Surrey—Woking—and other areas in the south, the core spending has not been reduced at all. So the hon. Gentleman should be shouting from the rooftops about the unfairness of the current formula.

The other issue—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who made some interesting points, particularly on Grenfell and the cladding situation, which I have spoken about many times in this Chamber. I agree with some of the points she made about that. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who made an excellent maiden speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr Bacon), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who are no longer in their places. I have definitely tasted some Cromer crab in my time and probably more than my fair share of Tim Taylor’s Landlord beer.

It is good to see that the Opposition acknowledge the need for a fairer system of spending distribution, and I concur with that. The Government started on this road to try to make the system fairer, as it is certainly not fair at the moment. It is not fair in the amount of money allocated to shires and to cities; there is a huge disparity there. We are talking about more than twice as much money—in some cases, almost three times as much—per capita in cities compared with counties. Let us look at overall spending power. North Yorkshire, if we add in both tiers of local government, has about £770 of spending ability per capita, whereas in London—in the top 10 authorities—the figure is about £1,000 to £1,100. That is despite the fact that their populations are younger and better-off than my local populations in North Yorkshire. It is simply an unfair system and it needs to be rectified.

Council tax in many shires, including in North Yorkshire, is almost twice as high as in many places around the country. The Opposition say, “That means you can raise more money more easily by increasing council tax.” That is, of course, true, but there is a failure to see the irony: the iniquity whereby, despite getting less money, we contribute much more locally for our services ourselves, because lots of these cities are getting a far bigger slice of the pie from central Government moneys. That is where the iniquity lies.

I am glad the Opposition see that we need a fairer system, as I agree with that. We also need to make the system fairer progressively. I do not think it is right to rob Peter to pay Paul, but that is not what this consultation is about. It is about introducing extra money over a period of time, so all boats are lifted in a rising tide. That is exactly where we need to be. The system has to be progressive so that those who are not getting a good deal now are better treated than those who are getting a much larger slice of the pie today, and, as the consultation says, it happens over time—three to five years. I absolutely accept that it would not be right for some people’s share to go down, but that is not what the consultation is saying.

The key to all this is that the biggest area of discretionary spend by local authorities is in adult social care. That is the major problem that we need to solve. The Government are absolutely right to say that we need to do that on a cross-party basis, because that is the only way we will get a sustainable solution. Otherwise, the Opposition will say at the next election that they are campaigning to do it differently and the issue will become a political football again. We need to move away from that and agree on something cross-party. The Government have said that, and I absolutely accept that we need to bring forward a Green Paper so that we can look at the options.

However, it is not right when someone like the shadow Health Secretary says, “We’ll agree to cross-party talks as long as you agree to our preconditions before we start; we want our solution to be the solution.” I have heard that from Opposition Members a number of times, although I do not think that this shadow Minister is of the same view, and I have been given that answer on the Floor of the House. It is simply wrong. We must have cross-party talks on the basis that everything is on the table, we sit down and discuss it, and we see where we can find common ground.

We do that, of course, in Select Committees. The most constructive thing that any of us do in this place as Back Benchers is to sit on a Select Committee where we discuss things cross-party. I have served on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for four and a half years. It has a fantastic Chair in the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). We have done dozens of inquiries over that time and have never had a single falling-out: all the reports are published with unanimous support. That means that we can get to a position where we can agree on some basic principles to take policies forward, which is what we have to do with social care.

Last year, the HCLG Committee held a joint inquiry with the Health Committee on future funding of social care. In our report we came up with a number of options, all of which we should discuss in the cross-party talks. One of them was to adopt a social insurance-style system similar to the one introduced in Germany in 1995. It is great to see Opposition Members nodding in agreement with that. Until that point, Germany also had a local authority-funded system, but that was seen as an inappropriate way to raise money to pay for social care because there was no correlation between the need for social care and the money that could be raised at a local level. They need to be totally separate. We held a long inquiry. In fact, the HCLG Committee visited Germany to look at its system, which is simple, scalable, and—critically—will stand the test of time.

We cannot solve the issue through general taxation. A report by the Office for Budget Responsibility said that if we carry on taxing things as we do today in terms of the need for things like social care, healthcare and pensions, our debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 80% to 280%. The taxpayer simply cannot pay for that out of general taxation; we have to find a different solution. For me, an insurance-based solution is the best thing. We developed a similar system for pensions with auto-enrolment, although that is not mandatory and this does need to be mandatory. So we do have a precedent in the UK for something that is scalable and sustainable.

The 22 members of the Select Committee, cross-party, endorsed the German system. It is a very good, simple system. It is based on about 2.5% of earnings, some paid by the employer and some by the employees. The basic principle is that everybody gives something so that nobody has to give everything. In my business life, whenever we were faced with a big problem, we always looked for somewhere else that had solved it. This has been solved over in Germany. The biggest benefit of the system is that when someone needs care, they are independently assessed and choose either to take that care from a provider such as the local authority or to draw down the money and pay it to a relative, neighbour or loved one who can look after them. It is by far the best system. We need to develop this whole policy area cross-party, and I look forward to doing that with Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

Better late than never. The hon. Gentleman has missed contributions highlighting the impact of austerity and cuts on many of the seats now represented by Conservative MPs. It is little wonder that the actual formula—the data, analysis and impact—has not been shared with the House at all. Why is that? The answer is that the Government realised that they need to go back—[Interruption.] I am going to continue, so that the Minister has time to respond.

Council tax increases generate very different amounts of money, depending on the locality and its funding base. A 5% increase in Wokingham would generate £5.2 million, while the same percentage increase in Knowsley would generate just half that amount, even though both areas have a similar population base. That is no way to fund adult social care. There is a genuine postcode lottery whereby house price valuations that are nearly 30 years old determine whether somebody gets looked after in their old age. I just do not think that is a fair way to do it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic maiden speech. What stood out in particular for me was the sense of the power of community. In spite of deindustrialisation and the real pressures faced through austerity, it is the power of people and place that binds and makes communities. The Government just need to be a bit more on their side in future, compared with the past 10 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) highlighted that £300 million has been taken from his local authority budget, and noted that the fair funding review is far from fair. It takes money from areas of high deprivation and directs it to more affluent areas, which is absolutely the opposite of fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted a £130 million cut and its impact on neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) highlighted the important role that councillors play in making sure that we have strong local leadership, but they need Government on their side. Far too often, when we ask the Government to step up and to do what is right, they are late in doing so, like some Members arriving in the Chamber. The example was given of the Government being far too late in responding to the cladding issues facing many tower blocks. I am afraid that that is just not good enough.

The truth is that the Government do not want to talk about finance. They know that they are not on strong ground on that issue. They certainly do not want to give any detail about the fair funding review, because it would highlight just how unfair the review really is. I am glad that the Ministers are sitting down, because this will surprise them: we are not going to accept the amendment tabled in the Prime Minister’s name. It does not mention finance; it talks about devolution. The Prime Minister wants to be able to pretend that his flavour of devolution is all about giving people power, but that is not what we have experienced.

Under this Government, many parts of this country have been denied devolution. There is no clear framework to enable local areas to know exactly what types of powers can be devolved to them. What we see with this Government is a flavour of devolution that goes from Ministers to Mayors, whereas Labour recognises that to give real power to communities, we need to start off in neighbourhoods and work up to the nation. Neighbourhoods and communities have not been central to the Government’s devolution agenda, and that has been the hallmark of all we have seen from this Government. I am glad that Labour Mayors are using their powers to ensure that the worst excesses of this Government do not filter down as strongly through to their communities they serve.

We have talked about the town centre fund. Clearly, all of us want to see investment in our town centres. We recognise their importance at the heart of our communities, and the decline that many have seen while retail has struggled to catch up with the online world. But frankly, we will never make progress if the Government are not willing to recognise that the business rates system is actively harming our high streets and town centres. It is not good enough to give just the local independents a boost. Of course that is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Doing only that massively underestimates the importance of anchor stores to bring footfall into big town centres.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the shadow Minister said that the business rates system is driving the change on the high street. I speak as somebody who has a number of properties in my business, and that is not what is driving this change. It is a change in consumer behaviour that is driving the change on the high street.

[Jim McMahon]

It is right to reflect that the high street will always evolve. It will never be what it was, and it will of course be different in the future. But that does not mean that we should just give up and accept that decline is inevitable. The types of spaces that are often talked about are bespoke spaces. It might be possible to reuse a single shop front, but how it is possible to reuse a whole shopping centre that was built to be a retail core?

The Government’s agenda of only supporting independent traders massively underestimates the impact of anchor stores such as Debenhams or Marks & Spencer, which bring footfall through a town centre. How can it be right that companies such as Amazon can have very clever accountants to hide their profits away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—which cleaners in their factories would not be able to do, by the way? How can it be right that Manchester airport’s warehouse distribution centre pays half the business rates of Debenhams in Manchester city centre? Where is the fairness in that system? If the Government really want a future for town centres and high streets, they really have to address that issue.

The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), was right to thank local government, but I am afraid that it will be beyond ironic to many that these thanks came from the Minister who has lorded over austerity and who tries to ignore the fact that the last 10 years have been under a Tory Government, whether in coalition or not. I am afraid that it is not good enough for him to disown the last 10 years as if they had never happened.

Most councils have done a fantastic job to survive. It has been the hard work and leadership of local councillors that has meant that many areas have not just been about decline, but have been offered hope. Council officers have worked so hard to ensure that public services can be delivered. But while thanking them, maybe we should give consideration to the fact that there are more than 900,000 fewer council officers today than there were in 2010; they have been sacked and sent out the door because councils do not have the money to pay them. That is the reality on the ground.

When we were told that austerity was over, I do not think that anybody really expected that we would go back to 2010, but nor do I think that anybody expected the cuts to go even deeper even faster, and that is exactly what will happen under the fair funding review. I challenge the Minister—if he is so confident that that his fair funding review is well thought through and genuinely fair, and that the evidence base is robust and can be tested, what is there to hide? Why not place the data in the Library by the end of the week, so that every Member of this Parliament can hold the Government to account?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly happy to look at the proposals if the hon. Lady wishes to bring them forward to the House.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to increase capacity on our railways in and between the north, the midlands, the south and Scotland, and that unless we want decades of disruption, the only way to do this is through Midlands Engine Rail, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and HS2?

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are not only building Northern Powerhouse Rail and investing in the midlands rail hub but, as he knows, we are looking into whether and how to proceed with HS2, and the House can expect an announcement very shortly.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Lady is making some fair points, but there have been failures over decades in terms of free regulation in relation to fire, and is it helpful at this point in time simply to use this issue in a party political perspective, as she is doing? This is about failures of previous Governments and, one could argue, failures of the current Government. Nevertheless, this should not be about party politics.

[Emma Dent Coad]

I acknowledge that, and I have not pointed to any parties at all. Indeed, there has been complacency and failure over many, many years.

If we wait another two years, we will see another Grenfell, and a finger of blame will point at the Government and their failures to act, and at this interim report. “Stay put” was the correct advice in Grenfell Tower for 45 years, until the building’s safety was compromised by a refurbishment designed by five years of bad decision making. This is a national Government policy that the fire services have been asking be reviewed for particular buildings for many years, ever since the first cladding fires. Firefighters are being blamed for Government policy failures and the Government still refuse to review the policy—it is “in due course”—because to do so would be, I believe, an admission of guilt.

I hope that the Government will reconsider and take immediate action. This is urgent. We must deal with safety and building regulations without delay. If another Grenfell happens, the Government will have knowingly sent residents and firefighters to their deaths. Let that be on their conscience and in their nightmares forever.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Or else?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am afraid I cannot give way; I have only a couple of moments left.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne says, “Or else?” We have said—the Prime Minister reiterated this today—that those building owners who do not take action should face the full force of the law. Local authorities should use the enforcement powers they have, and my Department stands ready to support any local authority that wishes to do that. We will name those building owners that are not remediating ACM cladding at the pace that is required and take enforcement action against them. It is, as I have said previously, frankly shameful that £600 million of taxpayers’ money is now at their disposal to remove this dangerous cladding and yet some are prevaricating. We must and we will take action.

In the broader context, which we will learn about in the next phase, I want to see Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review implemented in full. It will be through our building safety legislation that was announced in the Queen’s Speech. Building owners must now assess the safety of their buildings and take action if that is required.

A number of hon. Members raised the rehousing of the victims and survivors of the Grenfell tragedy. I can report that 95% of the 201 households who lost their homes have been permanently rehoused. Today, nine households remain to be permanently rehoused. It would be wrong of me to set out their cases before the House, but I know each of their individual circumstances and my Department and I will continue to scrutinise and to challenge the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to ensure that action is taken and hat these individuals, when it is right for them, move into permanent housing of their choosing.

In the remaining seconds available to me, let me say in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead that we will be taking forward the social housing White Paper. That is an important step in providing security and dignity to individuals who feel that they have not been listened to and that their views are not respected. We are working with Grenfell United, which represents some of the victims of the Grenfell tragedy, to ensure that that is done right and that we make the changes that are required for future generations.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the report from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill: Business of the House

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Budget Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill:

(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No.83N(6)), and

(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(8) if two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out. Consideration of Lords Amendments

(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.

(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Julian Smith.)

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I identify one in my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

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

On workers’ rights, the EU requires employers to offer 14 weeks of maternity pay. In the UK, we offer 39 weeks of maternity pay. If we wanted to reduce workers’ rights, why would this Government not have done that already?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: this Government wish to have the highest possible standards for workers across the country because we believe that that is the right way forward for the British economy. I am glad he made that point.

I wish to address the 48%, whose concerns must always be in our minds. The revised political declaration sets out a vision of the closest possible co-operation between the UK and our European friends—a

“relationship…rooted in the values and interests that the”

European

“Union and the United Kingdom share…anchored in their common European heritage.”

To British citizens living in EU countries and to EU citizens who have made their homes here and who have contributed so much, I say that this Bill protects their rights, ensuring that they can carry on living their lives as before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister and I agree on very little, but we both give way a great deal. I am not going to give way for the moment.

Clause 30 makes it worryingly clear that if no trade deal with the EU is agreed by the very ambitious date of December next year, Ministers can just decide to crash the UK out on World Trade Organisation terms. That is not getting Brexit done; it is merely pushing back the serious threat of no deal to a later date. Let us be clear: as things stand the Bill spells out the deeply damaging deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated—and he knows it, which is why he is trying to push it through without scrutiny. Labour will seek more time to scrutinise. We will seek a clear commitment on a customs union, a strong single market relationship, a hard-wired commitment on workers’ rights, non-regression on environmental standards and the closure of loopholes to avoid the threat of a no-deal Brexit once and for all.

Lastly, the Prime Minister’s deal should go back to the people; we should give them, not just Members of this House, the final say. They always say that the devil is in the detail; I have seen some of the detail and it confirms everything we thought about this rotten deal. It is a charter for deregulation across the board, paving the way for a Trump-style trade deal that will—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Government Members do not like hearing this bit, so I will say it again: it will pave the way for a Trump-style trade deal that will attack jobs, rights and protections and open up our precious national health service and all the history and principles behind it, and other public services, to even more privatisation. That is exactly what the Prime Minister set out in his letter to the President of the EU Commission, when he said that alignment with EU standards

“is not the goal of the current UK Government.”

There we have it in his own words. That is a vision for the future of our country that my party, the Labour party, cannot sign up to and does not support. That is why we will be voting against Second Reading tonight and, if that vote is carried, we will vote against the programme motion, to ensure that this elected House of Commons has the opportunity to properly scrutinise this piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings me to the tenor of what I want to say.

On the Government’s own estimates, with a Canada-style free trade deal we would see in our country a reduction in GDP of 6.7%. When we use a figure like that, it almost does not mean anything, but in a constituency—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way; I am going to make progress.

In a constituency like Tottenham, it means everything. It means that the knife crime that I am worried about could get considerably worse. I do not want the South Side of Chicago in Tottenham. It means that the jobs that we need may not be there. I think of the constituencies that good friends represent in other parts of this country. If we leave a £220 billion European market and leave the single market and the customs union, we will inevitably get tariffs. Tariffs will inevitably affect the manufacturing that is left, and that will surely mean a reduction in jobs in those constituencies. How will that assist our country? On the Government’s own estimates, there would be a reduction in GDP of 11% in the north-east of this country, and a reduction of 8% in the west midlands and the east midlands. That is massive; it is bigger than the 2008 crash. The truth is that, while there has been some recovery in London, there has been very little outside London in parts of the midlands, the north-west and the north-east. How can we seriously contemplate making things worse for those people?

We have been talking about a trade deal with the United States. I went on an all-party visit to the United States in July and we sat with Republicans and Democrats to talk about the meat of what a trade deal looked like. They were all clear, as was the trade union body in America, that there would of course be a reduction in labour standards because their labour standards are lower than ours. They were clear about wanting some of our agriculture, our pharmaceuticals and our healthcare. They also raised issues about Hollywood getting its grip on our creative industries. Why would we do that? How will that help our people?

So, we would get tariffs and a massive drop in growth, yet I stand here prepared to vote for this deal, but only on the basis that we put it back to the British people so that they can have the final say: do they want this deal or do they want to remain? I am prepared, despite the poverty and hardship in my own constituency, to go for this deal, but on that one condition. That is how we get this done. That is how we bring our country together. We must actually use democracy to say, “Do you really want this deal?” That is the only way forward. The rest is noise. As weary as we are, I cannot walk through the Lobby and knowingly wave this through with so little scrutiny on behalf of my constituents.

Prime Minister's Update

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, I would like Parliament to have a say on the deal that we do, but I think the best way to get the people to have a say is to have a general election, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support that.

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

One of the precedents quoted by the Supreme Court yesterday was a 1965 ruling that a Government cannot deprive individuals or companies of their assets without fair compensation. What implications does my right hon. Friend think that might have for a future Labour party manifesto?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that, with his characteristic acuity and his support of property and the rights of people across this country. Those would be despoiled if the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ever got anywhere near power. He has a Maduro-esque plan to take away private property from great, great schools across the country of the kind he attended himself once, in an ecstasy of hypocrisy, and thereby to incur the taxpayer with £7 billion of pointless extra cost to pay for the education of the children concerned.