Holocaust Memorial Day

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the first two speakers. To follow on from some of the early words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), tomorrow in Worthing people who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, humanist and Christian will come together to mark their intention that things such as this should never be forgotten and, where possible, should never recur. The idea that the holocaust was the last major genocide we all know is wrong.

I have spoken before about the places where some of my grandfather’s extended family died. The list sadly gets longer as research shows more and more people who were involved: Sobibor, Auschwitz, Mauthausen, Belsen, Ravensbrück, Dachau, Seibersdorf and Bytom. I do not know many of that side of my family. They are not close—they were not close—but they matter. The idea of education is that people like me can discover those links and that many other families will have a closer experience.

Every time I take people around the Palace of Westminster, I try to take them past the Kindertransport plaque by the admission order office. I show it to them to illustrate that what people may have disapproved of at the time, they are now proud of. It was not unanimous that those 10,000 children should have been able to come to this country from stations such as Prague, aged 5, 6, 7 or 8. I am glad we have the living proof of Alf Dubs, who in his lifetime has shown the importance of what was done following a debate in the House of Commons.

I wish to disagree with the Government about the location of the national holocaust memorial. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has tabled early-day motion 748, almost all of which I agree with. I have also tabled an amendment to it, stating that we should have the memorial

“in a place and manner consistent with the features and facilities listed by the United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s ‘Search for a Central London site’ in September 2015 on page 6 and in the area illustrated and considered to be sufficiently central to meet the visions set out by the Holocaust Commission on page 10.”

That map on page 10 states that a site would be regarded as central London from the west of Regent’s Park, to the east of Spitalfields and to the south of the Imperial War Museum.

I commend to everybody, whatever their views on the proposed location of the memorial and learning centre, that they visit the holocaust galleries in the Imperial War Museum, which reopened in the past two or three years. They are incredibly impressive. I think the way forward—I hope I will be supported by Baroness Deech and others—is for us to separate the learning centre from the memorial.

We should have a new competition for the memorial. It being adjacent to Parliament was not in the minds of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, the committee or the Government eight years ago. If it has to be there, we could consider Parliament Square, where the Buxton memorial fountain was first placed before it was moved to Victoria Tower Gardens. I think that we could do it better, and that it would have more impact and be less of a threat if we did not have the learning centre and the place of gathering so close to the Palace of Westminster.

My last point is that the tributes to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust are genuine. Those people do mighty work, and they allow people to understand what is happening. We must ensure that that does not happen just on Holocaust Memorial Day, but on every day of every year in every way, and that people understand the horrors of what we stood against, with the victims, around the time I was born.

One of the most difficult questions for people to answer is when would have been the right time to stand up, with force, against Adolf Hitler’s Nazis in Germany. Should it have been in 1933 when he was elected Chancellor and was thought to be pliable by the bigger parties? Should it have been in 1935 or ’36 when he started invading? Should it have been in 1938? It happened in 1939, although some people did not think that was right, but should it have been later, or ever, or never? The reason I am not a pacifist is because of the holocaust.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Andrew Western.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is truly an honour to make my maiden speech in the House in such an emotive and important debate. We must always remember the horrors of the holocaust, and do all we can to inform and educate ourselves and future generations about the dangers that exist when the judgment of decision makers is clouded by bigotry, hatred, racism and intolerance.

Given the matter before the House, I feel compelled to begin my comments about my constituency by first highlighting the rich diversity that we so cherish in Stretford and Urmston, and indeed in Partington, Carrington and Old Trafford. I am therefore pleased to share with colleagues that my constituency is home not just to those whose heritage can be traced back several generations locally, but, among others, to a large Irish diaspora, a considerable Muslim community, one of Greater Manchester’s largest Sikh populations, a Traveller settlement, many Jewish and Hindu residents, and a longstanding and sizeable African-Caribbean community.

In 1997, the new constituency of Stretford and Urmston elected its first MP, and we were represented until 2010 by Beverley Hughes, now Baroness Hughes of Stretford. Like me, Baroness Hughes was leader of Trafford Council before being elected to this place, and until earlier this month she also served local residents as the deputy mayor of Greater Manchester. Hers is a formidable record of public service, and she remains fondly remembered by many of my constituents to this day.

Bev’s retirement in 2010 saw my great friend and predecessor, Kate Green, elected. Kate was a much loved and admired MP, whose warmth, diligence and compassion quickly won her the support of local residents. You will know better than I do, Mr Speaker, that Kate was a respected and unusually thoughtful parliamentarian, thorough in her consideration of matters before this House, and compelling in the arguments she made to advance the many causes she supported. I am left in no doubt that I have huge shoes to fill.

It would be unforgivable for me not to refer in this speech to Stretford and Urmston’s unique status as the birthplace of what is surely the greatest social advance in the history of our country: our precious NHS. It was at Park Hospital, now Trafford General Hospital, that the late, great Nye Bevan officially opened the first NHS hospital on 5 July 1948. I look forward to celebrating the 75th birthday of the NHS this year, and I can only concur with Bevan’s words that day, that that was

“the most civilised step any country has ever taken.”

Another key element of my constituency’s history is our industrial heritage, given the economic significance of Trafford Park. As the world’s first industrial estate, Trafford Park’s place is history is assured. Yes, it is home to some of the most well-known businesses in the world—Ford, Kellogg’s, Westinghouse—but it is especially fitting in this debate that I share with colleagues that Trafford Park was also key to defeating fascism, with production almost entirely turned over to the war effort from the end of the 1930s. Indeed, it was at Trafford Park that the engines for both the Spitfire and the Lancaster bomber were manufactured—truly national service indeed.

Turning from Stretford and Urmston’s economic and industrial heritage to our cultural and sporting identity, I should note that we are also home to the Trafford Centre, one of the country’s largest indoor shopping and leisure destinations, and the provider of many jobs to our local economy. For those who seek a rather more cultured afternoon, the Imperial War Museum North offers an intellectual and educational experience that is second to none. A short walk away can be found the sporting Mecca that is Old Trafford, home to my beloved Lancashire county cricket club. It is a venue of international repute, and the site in 1993 of cricket’s ball of the century, with Mike Gatting bamboozled by Shane Warne.

On the subject of sport, and as a lifelong Manchester City fan, I have to admit to being sorely tempted today to use the protective veil of parliamentary privilege to assert that there is in fact only one sport in Old Trafford, and they play it with a cricket ball. But whatever my own footballing allegiances, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the global standing of Manchester United as a hugely successful sporting institution, even if they are still below City in the league.

A more recent addition to the constituency has been ITV, which moved production to Stretford and Urmston in 2013. With it came perhaps Manchester’s most famous global export, the cobbles of “Coronation Street”—the longest-running soap in the world. If soap opera has taught us anything, it is that from Weatherfield to Walford, Erinsborough to Emmerdale, and, yes, from Summer Bay to Stretford and Urmston, it is people and communities, not assets and institutions, who truly bind neighbourhoods together. People, that is, like notable former Stretford and Urmston residents Emmeline Pankhurst, L. S. Lowry, the philanthropists John and Enriqueta Rylands, “The One Hundred and One Dalmatians” author Dodie Smith, and the aviator John Alcock, born in Stretford, who piloted the first trans-Atlantic flight in 1919. All have helped to shape my constituency in some way, as have the friendly, hard-working and socially conscious people who are resident there now. I am humbled to be their voice in this place and hope to use my time here focusing on work to better support people out of poverty and to root out inequality.

Anybody seriously attempting to do either of those things must first recognise two simple facts: one, that a safe and secure home is the most fundamental element in unlocking anybody’s potential; and two, that while we as politicians speak the language of addressing unfairness, we are not yet routinely bold enough to challenge that most dangerous of inequalities that is so detrimental to our economy and our future, and that underpins our broken housing market—I speak of the generational inequality that is so entrenched in wealth and privilege up and down the land. I hope to say much more on that in future, Mr Speaker, but time and tradition prevent me from doing so today. I shall simply say that our housing crisis is, at its source, a crisis of basic supply and demand, the answer to which, however much we tinker at the edges, can only ever be to build, build, build. And why? Because:

“Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health, and education are all undermined by crowded houses.”

Those are not my words, but those of Winston Churchill’s Conservative party in its 1951 manifesto. Given that Churchill’s grandson, Winston Churchill MP, represented both Stretford and Urmston’s predecessor constituencies before 1997, those are words it feels fitting to associate myself with today.

So, that is me and that is my constituency, at least a little of it. I want to be an MP for everyone in Stretford and Urmston, but I want to be an MP fighting for a better future for Stretford and Urmston too. It is the honour of my life to serve such wonderful people in such a wonderful place that I am so privileged to call my home. I will give it my all, Mr Speaker, and I hope I will not let them down.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes the maiden speech. I must agree on the cricket; I’m not sure about the football, but it also held the rugby league world cup final.

Levelling-up Fund Round 2

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her wise advice. Culture is very important and I am very pleased that we are levelling up in her area.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why do we not stop the pretence that this has anything whatever to do with levelling up? Councils have to spend a lot of time bidding for one of about 300 pots of money. There is no real strategy at all and no joining up between the different bids. They look more like photo opportunities so that Ministers can go around the country announcing the successful results. Why will the Minister not listen to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee? We called for the bid process to be dropped for the most part and for Government Departments to instead consider how they can reposition the totality of their spending on a strategic basis to help the poorest parts of the country. The Secretary of State agreed that that is what should be done, but the permanent secretary said no progress has been made. Just say it—she wants a photo bid. Come up to Sheffield in South Yorkshire and stand at a bus stop. She will have a long time to wait before one comes along, because once again we have been unsuccessful with the bid we put in.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement today and for her notification to me last night.

[Mr Speaker]

It was not a statement. Unfortunately, it had to be an urgent question.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the Minister for her notification last night. Clearly, the decision not to proceed with Bracknell’s bid was disappointing. It is a good bid; it regenerates Bracknell’s town centre and was submitted by a solvent and well-run council. Will she confirm that in principle more affluent areas in the south-east will not be precluded from successful bids? Will she meet me to help Bracknell refine that bid to ensure success in tranche 3?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Feedback will be provided. If the hon. Member has further questions in relation to that feedback, she can raise them, and they will be answered.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her time. I am expressly thankful for the levelling-up funding received in the last tranche, but I am concerned that Northern Ireland is not receiving its share in this round. Can the Minister outline what has been allocated to Northern Ireland and, particularly, to my constituency of Strangford, which is in desperate need of levelling-up funding for shovel-ready projects such as the Whitespots environmental scheme, which is ready to go and will create jobs and be a real boost for the Northern Ireland economy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very aware of the issues my right hon. Friend raises, because we discussed them at length as the Bill was going through the House. I am grateful for her contributions, which have strengthened the Bill. I know that communities, including in her constituency, invest considerable time and effort in preparing neighbourhood plans, and I understand their frustrations when decisions go against their wishes. The current NPPF already provides important additional protection from speculative development for areas with a neighbourhood plan, but we want to go even further. We have just published proposals to increase protections for areas, including those with neighbourhood plans. Those proposals are now out for consultation and I know the Secretary of State will consider all views carefully before making a final decision.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone else.

The consultation on the NPPF before Christmas included quite a lot of flexibilities and potential for changes on the standard methodology that would be the basis for calculating the housing needs assessment, but the one area where there did not seem to be much flexibility was the urban uplift. Can the Minister justify the 35% uplift and set out how it has been calculated for each of the urban areas? Secondly, in cases such as that of Sheffield, where the urban uplift will force development on to greenfield sites and the green belt, will there be flexibility so that the extra amount from the urban uplift does not have to be applied where it can do real damage to local communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

Yes, I absolutely will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year.

Conservative failure to tackle regional inequality is just one in a long list of let-downs. Thirteen years of Tory rule, and parts of the UK have plunged further and further into poverty. Local authorities spent over £27 million applying for levelling-up bids, only for many to lose out—places such as Barnsley and Knowsley, which have been denied multiple bids with little transparency, leaving many colleagues in the dark and resorting to questioning Ministers about local bids, with no answers at all. Will the Minister please clarify the lack of transparency and the financial costs of these bids to cash-strapped councils, particularly during the cost of living crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

I am very proud to be a Scots person. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 2021 Holyrood elections: less than one third of the Scottish electorate voted for the SNP in that election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

A guid new year tae yin and a’, and monie may ye see.

The Minister talks about Administrations working together, so how is it working together when the Government propose unpopular and extreme legislation, such as the proposed anti-strike legislation that they have trailed in the media, which no devolved Administration support and which has not been consulted on? How is that strengthening the Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It has been six months since Birmingham City Council applied for round 2 of the levelling-up fund. Sadly, Ministers overlooked our bid in round 1, but that was two Governments ago. I am grateful to the Minister for Levelling Up for confirming that the results of the second round will be announced by the end of this month. If our bid is successful, the funding will totally transform Erdington High Street—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately this is not a levelling-up question.

[Mrs Hamilton]

Have I missed it?

[Mr Speaker]

Do not worry. I will see whether we can pick you up later.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Welsh Labour Government have applied schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which provides minimum standards for sustainable urban drainage systems on new housing developments. New properties in England lack those same statutory flood protections. The Government launched a review last year, so when will its results be concluded and when will schedule 3 be applied here so that homes in England can have the same standard of flood protection as those built in Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is talking about self and custom-build, about which I have had many conversations with him. He knows that we are strengthening the ability in the Bill to build such homes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

The Government’s decision to signal the end of enforceable local house building targets has already resulted in a number of local authorities pausing work on their local plans. I have a simple question for the Minister: has her Department carried out any analysis or assessment of the impact on overall housing supply of the changes to national planning policy outlined in the national planning policy framework consultation that is now under way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell]

With zero VAT on new build, demolition and greenfield development would seem to be the smart choice for developers, while empty buildings such as the former Debenhams in Eastbourne town centre, which would carry 20% VAT for renovation, are overlooked and year on year move towards dilapidation. Has any assessment been made of the number of new homes that could be delivered should different VAT regimes be levelled up? And, as there has been a great deal of negative campaigning—[Interruption.] I will come to that point next time.

[Mr Speaker]

One question.

[Dehenna Davison]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is a fantastic champion for levelling up in her community. Questions on VAT would be a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, but we are of course committed to reviewing incentives around brownfield development and will announce further details on the scope of that review in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience on this issue in his area, as well as having raised it nationally. I was very pleased to discuss it with him and the relevant Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care today. It is important that all the necessary infrastructure for a housing development is built, whether in relation to education or GP surgeries. The infrastructure levy will facilitate that even further—[Interruption.]—but it is important that we work together.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish the Secretary of State well and thank him for advance notice of his unavoidable absence today.

What do the Government have to say to the 1.4 million households who woke up this morning to find that they are facing eye-watering hikes in their mortgage interest payments this year?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Pitch for Lowestoft heard loud and clear! The Chancellor announced at the time of the autumn statement that the existing investment zones programme would be refocused to

“catalyse a limited number of the highest potential knowledge-intensive growth clusters”.

Our Department will work closely with key partners on how best to identify and support those clusters. My officials have read the APPG’s report; we will respond in full in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

A very happy new year, Mr Speaker. In September, amid the political chaos, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), published the Government’s rough sleeping strategy. Despite all the good intentions, the problem is evidently getting worse, not better. Data from CHAIN, the Combined Homelessness and Information Network—the most up-to-date rough sleeping snapshot for London—has confirmed that between July and September 2022, numbers were up 24% on the previous year. Figures published earlier in 2022 show that rough sleeping rose by 89% in the west midlands, 68% in Yorkshire and the Humber and 65% in the north-west—a shameful indictment of this Government’s record. Can the Minister rise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

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

This Government have made an unprecedented commitment on rough sleeping and homelessness. We are investing £2 billion over three years. We do see seasonal fluctuations, but the rough sleeping numbers are at under 3,000 at the moment. Every single person sleeping rough is one too many, but we are very much on top of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

We are delighted to have welcomed more than 150,000 Ukrainians into this country. We thank all the sponsors. On homelessness, 1,720 homelessness duties were owed to households who arrived under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That is a small fraction.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s get the questions in, please.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

An essential ingredient to levelling up is the ability to trade within a country to get the best prices and products. In Northern Ireland, that cannot happen because of the imposition of EU law, which has obstructed trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Will the Minister accept that only by removing the Northern Ireland protocol and abiding by the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill can this iniquity be removed?

[Lucy Frazer]

The right hon. Member will know that the Government have brought forward legislation on the Northern Ireland protocol, recognising that it is not working at the moment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The reason the British countryside looks different when driving down the motorway is that the Labour Government in 1945 banned out-of-town advertising hoardings. Why have the Government allowed them to start appearing on every single motorway in the land? When will they get rid of these horrible excrescences?

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In a moment, we will resume proceedings on the statement started earlier by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Before we do so, I put on record my dismay that the Government have failed to follow not just the clear, long-established conventions of the House but their own rules. The “Ministerial Code” says:

“A copy of the text of an oral statement should usually be shown to the Opposition shortly before it is made. For this purpose, 15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made. At the same time, a copy of the final text of an oral statement should in all cases be sent in advance to the Speaker.”

The key point here is “final text”. It is not acceptable to provide a brief precis of a statement that is then significantly expanded by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, as this means the Opposition have no meaningful advance notice and—this is my main concern—that Members do not have the detail they need in written form so they can properly ask questions of the Minister.

This situation is simply not acceptable and has caused the House very serious inconvenience, and it must not happen again. I have decided to allow the proceedings on the statement to continue, for Members to question the Secretary of State. Given the exceptional nature of this morning’s events, I will call Members who were not present when the Secretary of State delivered his initial statement but who are present now.

I am very grateful to Hansard for quickly producing a transcript of the Secretary of State’s statement, but I emphasise that it should not have to be expected to do so.

I now call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He draws attention to the importance of paying close attention to the inspector’s report. The inspector makes it clear that the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced and which has been endorsed across the House, explicitly

“does not rule out the use of coking coal in an integrated steel making process together with CCUS as a net zero compliant option going forward”.

On the basis of existing policy and the inspector’s recommendation, I have made my decision. As my hon. Friend points out, others—indeed, others from other parties—may make the decision on a party political ground. The decision we have made is purely on the basis of the evidence in front of us.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The decision has been condemned by the Chair of the Climate Change Committee. Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, retweeted that this is

“climate vandalism and economic incompetence on a scale difficult to believe”.

The International Energy Agency previously stated that no further fossil fuel projects can be built if net zero is to be achievable by 2050 and OECD countries need to end use of coal by 2030, so why license this mine to 2049? Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, called it

“a completely unnecessary step for the British Steel Industry”.

Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute research centre, previously advised that British Steel could not use this coal because it is

“not of the right quality”.

The reality is that 85% of this coal is going to be exported, so talking about cancelling imports is a complete red herring. What we are doing is increasing our carbon footprint to support industry in the EU. It is illogical and we know demand for coking coal will fall, as the EU is further ahead on the development of green steel. Where is the UK progress on green steel? Coking coal is not even identified on the UK’s critical mineral strategy or in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, although it is a critical mineral for the EU. But, clearly, this mine is not needed for the UK. Given this decision, what steps are being taken to rapidly accelerate the net zero pathway, for example, by changing the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster to track 1 status?

The Secretary of State hides behind the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate. Why did his Government override the Planning Inspectorate on Sizewell C? This coking coal is not critical for the UK. It is going to be exported, so why has he made this decision just to appease Tory Back-Bench climate change cynics?

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the decision I made yesterday to grant planning permission for a new metallurgical coalmine at Whitehaven in Cumbria.

I think it is important to stress at the beginning of my statement that I am speaking with regard to a planning decision that I have taken in my capacity as Secretary of State in what is a quasi-judicial process. Members of the House will be aware that the decision may, of course, be subject to a legal challenge, so I urge all Members of the House who are interested in the decision to read the decision letter, which was published yesterday, alongside the detailed report of the independent planning inspector who oversaw the public inquiry into the proposals. Any mature and considered response needs to take account of both my decision letter and the planning inspector’s full report.

I would like to refer in my statement to some of the arguments that the planning inspector has entertained and some of the arguments that he has made in the course of his report, but nothing that I say at the Dispatch Box should be taken in any way as a substitute for full engagement with the inspector’s report.

It is important to note that it is rare that any planning decision is an open-and-shut matter. There are almost always competing elements for and against any planning scheme—particularly a substantial one of this kind, which can raise serious and passionate debate—but the open and transparent public inquiry system allows all those issues to be fully explored. It also allows all parties to put their case before an independent inspector.

The decision that I issued yesterday was in line directly with the recommendation of the inspector, who heard all the evidence for and against the scheme and was able to test that evidence through the participation of interested parties. This was a comprehensive and thorough process, lasting over a month and hearing from over 40 different witnesses. It is summarised in a report of over 350 pages, which, again, I urge all hon. Members to read.

I think it important to restate—as I think is well understood—that the proposal granted permission yesterday for the production of coking coal for use in steel production is not an energy proposal. Our net zero strategy makes it clear that coal has no part to play in future power generation, which is why we will be phasing it out of our electricity supply by 2024. Coal’s share of our electricity supply has already declined significantly in recent years. It was almost 40% of our energy supply in 2012, and less than 2% in 2020.

I took account of the facts in reviewing the planning application, as did the inspector, taking into particular account the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy industrial decarbonisation strategy of March 2021, which explicitly does not rule out the use of coking coal in an integrated steel-making process, and makes it clear that, together with carbon capture and storage, that can be part of a net zero-compliant option.

It is important to note, as the inspector makes plain on page 239 of the report, that it is clear all the scenarios and forecasts for the future use of coking coal which were put before the inquiry demonstrated a continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades to come. It is also important to state that the European Commission, as the inspector noted, recognised the indispensable role of coking coal during the steel industry’s transition to climate neutrality.

It is also important to note, as the inspector did on page 238, that the UK is currently almost wholly dependent on imports of coking coal to meet its steel manufacturing demand. In 2017, 98.8% of the more than 3 million tonnes of coking coal used in UK steel plants was imported. The main exporters of coking coal at the moment are Australia, the USA and, of course, Russia. European metallurgical coal demand is forecast to remain between 50 and 55 million tonnes per annum for the next 28 years, and in the UK demand is forecast to remain at the current level of 1.5 million tonnes per annum.

The coking coal that will be extracted from the mine in Whitehaven is of a particular quality. Coking coal is usually a blended product of soft and hard high volatile coals and low volatile coals. The coal from the proposed mine would have a low ash content of below 5%, compared with between 7% and 8% for US coal and 10% for Australian coal. It would also have a low phosphorus content, lower than that of Australian coal, and a high fluidity. It is also important to note that, while the sulphur content of this coal has been referred to, and it is relatively high, the evidence before the inspector suggests that the coal handling and processing plant will produce coal with an average sulphur content of 1.4 %, and the applicant has stated its acceptance of the planning condition to ensure the product leaving the mine meets this level.

It is also important to note that the applicant is making it clear that this will be the only net zero metallurgical coking coalmine in the world. It is vitally important that all of us recognise—as the inspector does on page 255—that the proposed development would to some extent support the transition to a low-carbon future specifically as a consequence of the provision of a currently needed resource from a mine that aspires to be net zero. I think it is also important that we recognise that, in any change of land use, there will always be a potential impact on biodiversity and on the local environment as well. Again, it is important to note that, on page 278 of his report, the inspector makes it clear that this mine would not cause any unacceptable impacts on ecology or result in a net loss of biodiversity. The inspector also makes it clear in paragraph 22.9 that the proposed development itself would have an overall neutral effect on climate change, and as such there would be no material conflict with Government policies for meeting the challenge of climate change.

Taking account of all these environmental considerations, we should also bear in mind the impact on employment and on the economy, locally and nationally. As the inspectorate notes on page 279, the mine will directly create 532 jobs, which will make a substantial contribution to local employment opportunities because they will be skilled and well-paid jobs. The employment, and indirect employment, that would follow will result in a significant contribution to the local and regional economy, with increased spending in local shops, facilities and services. In addition, the exportation of some of the coal to European markets will make a significant contribution to the UK balance of payments. It is therefore the case that granting the application is compliant with planning policy, and the social and economic benefits should be afforded substantial weight.

The inspector’s report makes a strong case, in a balanced way, for the granting of permission. After reading the inspector’s report in full, I am satisfied, in my role as Secretary of State, that it is the right thing to do to grant this planning application.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The statement I received was the thinnest ever, but the Minister has gone long. Between that and what the Opposition and I have been provided with, there is something missing, which is not in accordance with the ministerial code. We do not work like that. The shadow Secretary of State has not been able to read what has just been said. I am going to suspend the House in order to try to find out what is in the statement.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Speaker]

I will suspend the House until 11.30, when we will have business questions. That will enable us to try to get a transcript of what has been said in the statement, so that all Members, whatever their opinions, can ask informed questions, as they would wish to. That is how we will play it: we will have business questions at 11.30, then we will come back to the statement. I am sorry about this; this is not the way to do good government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan]

We are looking to abolish section 21 at the same time as we strengthen the grounds for landlords to take possession of their properties if they have a good reason to do so—that could be because of antisocial behaviour, rent arrears, or needing to sell the property. The two go in tandem, but it is absolutely imperative that we go ahead with the abolition of section 21.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Later this week, the Department is scheduled to release stats for the second quarter of the year on section 21 evictions. The emerging picture is clear: section 21 evictions are going up. We saw a 26% increase during the first quarter of this year. We are now three years down the track from the publication of the 2019 Conservative manifesto promising to end section 21. I note that the Minister has committed today to ending section 21 in this Parliament, but may I push further and urge the Department to commit to bringing forward emergency legislation early in the new year to end this scandal, working with the Opposition to do so? Will those on the Government Benches accept that, through their inaction, the Department is leaving tenants vulnerable to eviction in the meantime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about capacity within local government and the opportunities this Government are making available for local councils to make decisions on how to make their area better over the long term. I know he is a huge champion of his area and I wish him every success in those applications.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Local Government Association has calculated that councils are facing extra inflation costs of £2.5 billion this year and extra costs of £3.5 billion next year. If we look at the autumn statement, apart from social care there was no mention of any extra money whatsoever for local government. All that will come is a potential £0.6 billion if councils put up their council taxes by the 3%, aside from the social care precept. Surely £3.5 billion versus £0.6 billion means significant cuts to council services or the prospect, as the LGA has said, of some councils going bankrupt next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

We know that freeports have the opportunity to be transformative for many areas that are ultimately successful in their bids. We know that so many places, including those in Scotland, are looking forward to taking part in UK Government-led activities such as this. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the north-east of Scotland, and I wish him well. We will make announcements in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Before the Chancellor’s statement, the Conservative leaders of Kent County Council and Hampshire County Council wrote to the Prime Minister warning of their likely bankruptcy. Instead of hearing the concerns of local leaders across the country, the Government passed on responsibility to them by forcing councils to raise tax. Not only is that another unfair burden on the British taxpayer, but local government experts have estimated that the Tory plans to raise council tax will bring in more than £80 per household in Surrey but only £39 per household in Manchester and Hull. That sounds dangerously like another Tory failure in the making on levelling up. Does the Minister truly understand the financial emergency facing councils today? If so, how can he justify local residents and businesses having their council tax raised while the Government allow non-doms to avoid paying between £1 billion and £3 billion-worth of tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

It is because we are concerned about the impact of inflation and increases in interest rates that this autumn statement protected the most vulnerable by uprating benefits and pensions with inflation, strengthening the energy price guarantee, and providing cost of living payments.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would also like to update the House on the score in Qatar: it is now 5-1 to England. I feel it is appropriate for me to do this because the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) has been providing a running commentary on the answers being given from the Treasury Bench, so it is only fair that we provide a running commentary that the country actually wants to hear.

[Mr Speaker]

Excuse me! Secretary of State, I thought you were in charge of levelling up—it doesn’t look that way with that score!

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I would have informed the House of that, had the Secretary of State not got there before me. After promising to match EU structural funds in the Government’s manifesto, and then taking £1 billion a year out of them for the replacement shared prosperity fund, how can the Secretary of State claim to be levelling up when his Government have presided over a net loss in funding across the country, including in the north-west, which stands to lose £206 million under the shared prosperity fund, which the Government have failed even to inflation-proof?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Lichfield is the jewel of Staffordshire, but even the most glittering jewels sometimes have flaws and, as a rough diamond himself, I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that. I recognise that there is a need to help all those parts of the United Kingdom and the west midlands where, even though there may be prosperity, there is inequality that needs to be addressed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the update on the football scores; it foreshadows what we intend to do to the Government side at the next general election. The truth is, before they crashed the economy, they were already struggling. Twelve months; 12 directors not in post; 12 missions going backwards. Only a third of the levelling-up funds has been allocated, and after wasting our time with the short-lived investment zones, the second round is months behind schedule. According to a circular, a local planning department performing at this level would have been put into special measures by now, by the Secretary of State. Can we bring some sense to this madness, end the “Hunger Games”-style competition, and allow all our communities—not just his favourites—to decide how their own money is spent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Yes. Every time I visit Wales, I am continually impressed by the superb advocacy that Conservative MPs bring to bear for their communities, not least in Ynys Môn. I look forward to making that visit, I hope, early in the new year after the levelling-up fund bids will have been confirmed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It has been quite something to listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House arguing for more powers for councils in England while they conspire to prevent powers for the Scottish Parliament—they are better together. After several tumultuous and wasted months while the Tories fought with each other as households struggled, I welcome the Secretary of State back to his place. During the autumn statement, levelling up did not merit a single mention, yet we are told that it is the Government’s flagship policy. With deeper austerity cuts slated for after the next election, the future of the levelling-up agenda is more in doubt than ever. Does he agree that levelling up requires a long-term commitment and that a levelling-up agenda cannot credibly survive the planned Tory austerity on stilts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

I had best keep my comments about Arsenal to myself in this House, but my right hon. Friend is right: levelling up is not something that can be simplified purely by region or by north and south, and there are pockets all over the country that need to benefit from funds such as the levelling-up fund. I know how much of a passionate advocate he is for the Andover bid, and we will be announcing the result in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Norris.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The autumn statement confirmed that round two of the levelling-up fund is to be frozen in cash terms, meaning that the Government’s inflation crisis has significantly eroded the value of the fund in real terms. The Government must now either reduce the quality and scope of the winning bids, or accept fewer bids—which will it be?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his passionate plea. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department —and a very successful one, if I may say so—he will know that at this stage I cannot comment on individual bids. I am delighted that Devon County Council has put in a bid to the levelling-up fund, and we will be announcing the results of that bidding process in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.

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

It is almost five and a half years since the horror of Grenfell, yet the building safety crisis remains unresolved for the vast majority of affected leaseholders. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when the overdue developer remediation contract will be published? When will Ministers finally resolve the problems relating to mortgages and buildings insurance, and when will those leaseholders who are currently excluded from protections learn whether their Government intend to help or abandon them?

Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is a consistent and effective advocate for the issues that affect rural constituencies such as North Devon, and I recognise—not least as a result of our conversations about the subject—just what a problem this is for her constituency. We are looking at all the options to ensure that there is a proper supply of rental properties in such areas.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Matthew Pennycook.

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

Last week Government sources told The Times that Ministers were planning to renege on their commitment to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, only for the Prime Minister to stand up days later and deny that that was the case. Private renters need long-term security and better rights and conditions now, not chaotic mixed messaging from a Government in disarray. Can the Secretary of State give the House a cast-iron guarantee from the Dispatch Box today that if the Government are still standing come the time, a renters’ reform Bill will be introduced in the next parliamentary Session?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to pay fulsome tribute to my hard-working predecessor for his incredible work in not just getting the strategy over the line, but agreeing the £2 billion of funding that will support the implementation of that strategy over the next three years. I am delighted to be carrying on his great work.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Sarah Owen.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I know that today’s focus is on heating homes, but for far too many people it is on saving their homes. Nearly 20,000 households have been put at risk of homelessness by no-fault evictions in the past year, a rise of 121%, while the Government dither. Mortgages are soaring, rents are rising, homelessness is increasing, and 1,300 Ukrainian refugee households, many with children, are homeless because of the Department’s failure to act on repeated warnings. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that without action this Government will break their promise to end rough sleeping by 2024. Will the new Minister tell us whether they are sticking to that pledge, or will he tell us the truth—that the homelessness crisis will not be fixed by increasing bankers’ bonuses, but will only be fixed by a change of Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Not least thanks to his efforts, there will never be any chance of his part of the world being ignored.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Norris.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government’s levelling-up plans have made so little impact that they have had to resort to paying local newspapers to carry positive stories. That is right: they are paying for positive coverage. These ads breach Advertising Standards Authority rules and have subsequently been banned. This is a risible episode. Will the Secretary of State come clean that the only conclusion to be drawn is that levelling up is a sham?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman has to understand the situation we are in with regard to inflation. It is absolutely the case that, owing to the consequences of Putin’s war, prices are rising—[Interruption.] I will accept many things at the Government’s door, but I will not accept inflation as a consequence of Putin’s war. There is a clear read through to the costs of many issues, and this affects economies across the west. Neither central Government nor local government can expect to buck inflation, or to accommodate the cost of inflation in our settlements. There is therefore a mechanism within the levelling-up fund to allow bids to be resized for inflation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) has raised his concerns about levelling-up funds reaching his constituency, but if levelling up is to mean anything, it should ultimately be about reducing child poverty. In Scotland, the Scottish Government are doing what they can to deal with child poverty, but in my constituency it stands at a shocking 25%, and that figure is set to increase thanks to the decisions made by the UK Government. So will the Secretary of State explain what reduction in these shocking levels of child poverty he believes will be achieved as a result of the levelling-up agenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: we need to avoid there being a hard border between England and Wales, and indeed between Scotland and England, on these questions. It is vital that we make sure that we listen to the voice of business and local government as well as to MPs—my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) have already met me about this issue—to make sure that we avoid the disaster for north Wales of England proceeding with these zones and Wales not choosing to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It seems that investment zones are one of the few bits of the mini-Budget that are still on the table. Can the Secretary of State clearly explain how investment zones will be financed? Will it be completely new money, and, given the pressure that local authorities have been under from austerity and now from inflation, will he give an assurance that the money for investment zones will not be found by transferring it from other parts of the local government budget and particularly from levelling-up funds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Fond as I am of the hon. Lady, who is an excellent parliamentarian, I am afraid that she is wrong on this point. The report in question set out that councils across the north-east had spent £4 million applying for the levelling-up fund and had received more than £360 million in return. That seems a very good rate of return to me. On her point about people not knowing what levelling up means, tell that to the people of Teesside, with the remediation of the Teesworks site. Tell that to the people of Blyth, with Britishvolt. Tell that to the people of Hartlepool—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is the topical questions session, Secretary of State. We do not need these personal battles. Let’s move on.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

T2. It has been an exception year for Mirfield in Bloom, winning regional and national Britain in Bloom awards as well as being presented with the Queen’s award for voluntary service. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Britain in Bloom community champion Christine Sykes, Ruth Edwards and the Mirfield in Bloom team on receiving recognition for their amazing work and does she agree that Britain in Bloom competitions are vital in transforming the visual appearance of our towns?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I join him in congratulating Christine, Ruth and the Mirfield in Bloom team. The Britain in Bloom competition is a fantastic way to bring communities together.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. He is the third Secretary of State I have had the pleasure of shadowing in the past 10 months and I wish him well for however long he remains in office. In an hour’s time, it looks like his investment zones will be the only thing left of this bin fire of a Budget. Can he tell us what assessment he has made of the amount of growth they will generate by the end of 2024 and will it be enough to offset the £26 billion he and his friends have just added to people’s mortgages?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I am very fortunate to have had two such able predecessors in my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), to whose work at the Department I pay tribute. As he knows, we are bringing forward devolution deals at pace—I believe in them passionately—and I hope that there will be good news to announce on both those deals very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Recently, I raised concerns about fracking being imposed on Scotland using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Business Secretary replied that that Act is the Koh-i-Noor jewel in the crown of the UK constitution—an unfortunate comparison given that the Koh-i-Noor was pillaged from India by the British. Then we heard a Tory MP suggest that fracking should go ahead in Scotland, instead of in her constituency. As the Secretary of State for Communities, will he make it clear to his Cabinet colleagues that there must be no move to impose fracking on communities in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are looking at all the measures that can be used to drive forward and accelerate housing growth, but as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), there are compelling reasons why this option has not been pursued before, and I hope that will give some comfort to my hon. Friend today.

[Mr Speaker]

That ends questions. Before we come to the next business I want to say something about applications for urgent questions. Although such applications are made in confidence, on an exceptional basis I want to say something about applications that I received today about the treatment of protesters at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester at the weekend. I regard this issue as being of the utmost seriousness; it is something which I am convinced should be considered on the Floor of the House. Given the importance and urgency of the other business being taken I will not allow the UQ today, but if no statement on the subject is brought forward by the Government later this week, I shall certainly be sympathetic to a UQ application.

Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Norris.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is an issue that has generated a range of very strong views, but there should be a common sadness that such an important memorial is set back yet again. Remembering the holocaust and what it says about humanity’s past, present and future is an intergenerational necessity— 6 million Jewish people, Roma and Gypsy people, Slavic people, LGBT people, disabled people all savagely murdered. Antisemitism remains a scourge today that we all must fight together.

I am proud that Nottinghamshire is home to the National Holocaust Centre and Museum, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members and anyone watching proceedings today to visit it. They would not accept credit readily, but the work of the Smith family is a model of how memorials can be very thoughtfully done by bringing people together. We lost Marina Smith last month and I know that all colleagues will want to pass on their best wishes to the Smiths.

We are now faced with the question of what to do next. The Leader of the Opposition made very clear last week our commitment to a national memorial and his very strong belief that it should be sited next to Parliament. Does the Minister intend to bring forward legislation to make sure that this memorial happens? Will he commit to a cross-party, all-community effort to revitalise the project? I know that he is by instinct a consensus builder, and I suggest that he leans on that now, because this is a project of huge national importance and it is a source of sadness that we cannot make something of such universal significance happen. We now must come together to ensure that it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, any legislation will be the decision for the next Prime Minister. It remains a manifesto commitment to build the holocaust memorial so that we remember. On the location, 90% of the gardens will remain unchanged and open. Less than 10% will be used by the memorial, which will be open to the public. That is why Government believe that it fitted within the existing legislation. That is also why we will be reviewing the court case to see what it says, and our response will be in place accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

The proof is in the pudding.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I say to the Minister that this is not a party political matter—it goes across the parties? We want this centre to be built and we want it to be built sooner rather than later. My father fought in the last war and was one of the Royal Engineers who went to Germany for the clear-up. He never recovered from what he saw there at the end of the war. I have this plea to the Minister. People will be disturbed by this. I was sorry to see that, under the contract that had been let, all the materials will be brought in and the waste taken away by road, but it would be much better for the residents and for the people in London if it were all carried on the river. Will the Minister consider that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In case anyone thinks that I did not declare that I have studied here in Westminster, worked here and lived here for two thirds of my life, I repeat that. I also say that it is not a minority who have blocked the proposal: it is two judges. We should not refer to a High Court judge and an Appeal Court judge as “a small minority” when they are actually getting the Government to obey the law.

[Mr Speaker]

Right. We now come to business questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is important that we fund local government appropriately, and we can do so only because of the way in which our economy has been well managed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] I am afraid that every time we hear from Labour Front Benchers, we hear another plea for more spending, but never, ever do they give an explanation of where the money will come from. The last time there was a Labour Chief Secretary, he left a note saying that there was no money left. Lord preserve us from another Labour Government, who would borrow and spend and take this country back to bankruptcy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Despite the Secretary of State’s bluster, he will be aware that the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has written to him—I have the letter right here—to express her deep concerns about the UK Government’s lack of engagement during the drafting of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and about how it cuts across devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives from the Scottish Parliament specifically to discuss the democratic imperative of respect for the powers of that Parliament? Or does he simply not recognise the democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I can do nothing but welcome my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for his city and for the amazing work that has been going on there. The collaboration between the Department, the Government and the city council under Abi Brown’s excellent leadership, shows that there is transformational change happening in Stoke-on-Trent, thanks to the fact that it has Conservative representation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling up, Housing and Communities Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the initial support—it is initial I am sure—that the Government are giving towards regeneration in my constituency. However, there is a problem. Initially, Sheffield Council was planning under the local plan to build around 40,000 homes in the next 15 years. With the metropolitan uplift, that has increased the number to more than 50,000. That will mean unnecessary building on greenfield sites, which otherwise could have been saved, and it will take the impetus away from building on regeneration brownfield sites. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the council to discuss how we can avoid this double disaster from happening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the accountability of housing associations. It is our drive, through the Government’s work and the new Bill, to ensure that that accountability is increased. I am assured that the Housing Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue with Optivo.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.

[Eddie Hughes]

It is slightly disappointing when the hon. Gentleman turns up with a written question that I have already answered in the response to the previous question. However, it is equally important to note that during the 11 years where we had a Labour Government, they built fewer affordable homes than the Conservative Government have built subsequently, so I do not think we are in a position to take lessons from the Opposition.

[Mr Speaker]

Now here is a lesson from Michael Fabricant.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

11. Whether he has had discussions with the Mayor of the West Midlands on steps his Department is taking to help rough sleepers into long-term accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, has been a strong champion of the Housing First programme and the pilots. That has already achieved 552 individuals securing a tenancy through the programme. They are provided not just with accommodation but with the incredibly vital support that is necessary to help people to sustain a tenancy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Sarah Owen.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I read a rather lovely interview with the Minister in a recent issue of The Big Issue where he reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to end street homelessness by 2024. All Labour Members want that to happen, and I actually think the Minister does too, but can he honestly tell the House that this pledge has his whole Department’s backing when the Secretary of State, sat next to him, is seeking to bring back the universally hated, cruel and antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824? If this Government really believe their own promise that they can end rough sleeping within the next two years, why are they seeking to recriminalise it now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I agree with both things, and we support all levelling-up bids.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Minister Alex Norris.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The recent report from the Public Accounts Committee was a huge blow to the way in which the Government are seeking to level up and it exposed once again the debilitating impact of beauty parades and unclear allocation criteria. If the Secretary of State thinks that was praise, then goodness me! This can be resolved in future by the Government accepting our calls for proper, sustained funding that is targeted at need. Therefore, to make sure that we are never in this situation again, will the Minister commit to accepting amendment 13 to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which will start this process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That was beautifully scripted. I offer my support to the hon. Lady in her leadership bid; I am behind her 100% of the way, as, I am sure, are her friends in the RMT and that other figure who joined Labour MPs on the picket line last week: Arthur Scargill. She talks about going back to the future, but she would take us back to the future of the ’80s with strikes, inflation and borrowing. She is the Marty McFly of politics: someone who lives in the past, even as she aspires to greater things.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to both Front Benchers that it is totally unacceptable to take that length of time in topical questions. Back Benchers are the people who are meant to be asking topical questions, so please consider the rest of the Chamber.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

T6. Wrexham’s levelling-up gateway bid is supported by a 16,000-signature petition, which we will present to No. 10, to redevelop the Kop stand at the racecourse and create an international sporting stadium in north Wales for the first time. Does the Minister agree that people are at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and the amount of people who have signed the petition shows its true value?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I pay tribute to her leadership on this issue. We look forward to seeing the bid.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm his willingness to meet me, North Ayrshire Council and key partners to discuss the robust proposals for a fusion energy plant at Ardeer in my constituency? Does he agree that a successful Ardeer bid would provide a step change in local and regional economic prosperity, as well as being a catalyst for long-term sustainable investment in North Ayrshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I was very proud when this Government repealed the Vagrancy Act 1824 under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the last thing we should do is demonise and criminalise people who rough-sleep and beg. I absolutely appreciate that there can be antisocial behaviour with aggressive begging, but we have legislation —more robust and more modern legislation—that deals with that. Therefore, I was concerned to see that clause 187 of the new Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill disregards the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. When is a repeal not a repeal?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was too long.

[Michael Gove]

There will be no return to the Vagrancy Act. We will work with the Home Office to ensure that there are appropriate measures to deal with any form of antisocial behaviour, but criminalising rough-sleeping and begging is not on the agenda.