Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lee Rowley and Janet Daby

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

The Government expect those who have caused defects to step up to solve them. As the House is aware, 50 developers have now signed contracts to resolve cladding and non-cladding defects in more than 1,100 buildings. For other properties, the Government are making extensive taxpayer subsidy available to support cladding remediation, along with other mechanisms to pursue those who are responsible.

[Janet Daby]

Help for people living in under-11 metre buildings that have fire safety defects does not go far enough, because of the huge amount of money involved. One of my constituents has described her experience as a “never-ending nightmare”. Will the Minister bring that nightmare to an end for constituents such as mine who are forced to pay to fix the mistakes of others?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a specific question about under-11 metre properties. Every property, be it over or under 11 metres, needs a fire risk assessment, and I encourage her constituent to ensure that a fire risk appraisal of external walls is undertaken against that property. If the FRAEW indicates that extensive work is necessary, I would be happy to receive a copy of it and look into it personally in order to deal with this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lee Rowley and Janet Daby

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

17. What recent progress he has made on cladding and non-cladding remediation for residential buildings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

The Government intend to enact reforms to improve the buildings insurance market by banning commissions, increasing the transparency of information and preventing unjustified legal costs when premiums are challenged. We are also pressing the insurance industry to launch its scheme. In 95% of all identified unsafe high-rise aluminium composite material buildings, and in 400 buildings supported by the building safety fund, remediation works have been either completed or started.

[Lee Rowley]

I completely appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why I have met with the Association of British Insurers multiple times in the last few weeks alone. I am hopeful that the scheme it hopes to bring forward with the insurance industry will come forward in the next few weeks. Later today, I am meeting the British Insurance Brokers’ Association again to talk about how it will reduce commissions, in advance of the work that the Secretary of State has already announced to ban such commissions.

[Janet Daby]

In my constituency, there are two main housing developments where remediation work has been promised to fix unsafe cladding on buildings. I hope that the Minister is fully aware that living in unsafe buildings has meant individuals and families have had to put their lives on hold. Leaseholders cannot sell, move or staircase their homes, and some have had to put starting a family on hold. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is unacceptable? Will he agree to implement a timeframe so that work is prioritised by housing providers and building firms?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the challenges her constituents are facing. I appreciate the point that she is making about challenges. That is why we are trying to push forward with remediation as quickly as we are able to do so. Since the announcement by the big six lenders in December, taking effect in January, it should now be possible for more owners and leaseholders in properties like these to be able to buy, sell or remortgage. Early data received by the Department indicates that while the market will take some time to become more functional, it is moving in the right direction.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Debate between Lee Rowley and Janet Daby

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The reason I articulate and go through existing programmes and policies that have already been done is because hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—[Interruption.] She continues to heckle from a sedentary position. She absolutely refuses to acknowledge that the Government are doing a substantial amount and, as has been indicated, we will continue to look at what else we can do in the coming days, weeks and months ahead. We of course recognise that the immediate situation is challenging, but it would be remiss of the Opposition to refuse to acknowledge the significant immediate help and the long-term subsidy going in to support those who need assistance with energy costs. As I have said, the Government remain committed to working with all to see what more can be done.

Let us turn to the second part of the motion. As the House knows, taxation matters are dealt with by the Treasury. As hon. Members are aware, and as Governments of all colours have regularly reminded them from this Dispatch Box over many decades, all taxes are kept under review. Yet given that the Opposition want to couple the cost of living with fiscal matters such as this, let me say a few words about this particular rabbit out of the hat from the Labour party—its big idea; its solution to the problem. This money will no doubt be spent multiple times, as it always is, and on multiple causes in the multiple Opposition day debates ahead. This is the Labour party’s generous offer, to take the words of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North a moment ago, and its reason to be cheerful. I confess, following the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, that if this Miliverse is the reason to be cheerful, we should all be very gloomy. I am none the wiser about the ultimate purpose of what the Labour party proposes. Its objective is mystifying. Its aim is confused.

So what is the purpose? Is it simply a money source? Or are we instead talking about the use of the tax system for something more fundamental? The right hon. Gentleman talks about the long term, but he should also recognise that short-term decisions are required. Either way, he should be clear about the position he argues for and its implications. If this is to be a money source, the best way to maximise that money—both at the time the Opposition presumably want to implement this, and then in the future when they inevitably come back for more money—is to maximise the amount of oil and gas coming out of the ground.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Conservative party has received more than £1.5 million in donations from companies and individuals linked to the oil and gas sector. Is it not the case that although some Conservative Members want a windfall tax to help their constituents, they and their Government are not prepared to stand up to vested interests?

[Lee Rowley]

What is the case with this Government is that we will take decisions in a proportionate and reasonable manner, rather than using Opposition day debates and the half-baked motions underneath them to make decisions as a result.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North needs to be clear whether this is a money source. If it is, he will need to maximise the amount of oil and gas coming out of the ground. That exact principle of maximising economic recovery has been the building block of the approach to the North sea over many decades. If that is the case, the Labour party should be clear about that—we will welcome it to the reality-based community—and that the transition to net zero will take time and will require the use of conventional energy to get there. The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand the logic of his position.

The Labour party now appears in favour of encouraging as much activity on the UK continental shelf as possible so it can tax it. The Labour party needs to accept that oil and gas will be a significant part of the future of the UK’s energy supply for the coming decades during the transition, if only because it wants the money that comes with that. I presume that the Labour party will therefore immediately go out and proclaim to its friends and fellow travellers who shout about keeping it in the ground that that is not possible, advisable or practical, and that it has made a political choice to keep the oil and gas flowing because it wants the money that comes with it.

The Labour party will presumably be withdrawing its opposition to further exploration as a result, because if it is all about the money, the taxes and the spending, by default it also has to be about the exploration, the extraction and the production. That is the choice that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North has made in coupling the two propositions together as he has done in his own motion.