Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Do the Government realise how absurd all of this sounds? Their own flagship Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Lords, has measures in it to block new homes from being built, and yet the Minister stands here berating councils for getting in the way. All of this is happening because Conservative Back Benchers have more control of housing policy than their Government. So when the local Conservative MP in Cambridge says that his latest scheme “will not happen”, he is probably right, is he not?

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not quite know how to give that a serious response. I have just set out in huge detail all the work backed by public funding—taxpayers’ money—going into delivering the houses that people need up and down the country. As far as I can see, the only people blocking housing development are those such as the hon. Lady, who is objecting to developments in her own constituency.

[Lisa Nandy]

It is literally in the Government’s own Bill—they are trying to block new houses from being built. They have had 17 housing Ministers and three planning overhauls, and house building is at its lowest level for a generation.

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

Which clause?

[Lisa Nandy]

The Secretary of State wants to talk now—why did he not take the question? I suspect it is because he has again run into so much opposition from his Back Benchers about a story briefed only yesterday that he has had to abandon it. One hundred small and medium-sized house builders have been protesting to Downing Street and mortgages have gone through the roof. It really does take some brass neck to present that as anything other than an appalling record.

I have in my hand an analysis that shows that all this chaos will cost the economy £44 billion. Are the Government the only people left in Britain who cannot admit that the housing crisis, the mortgage crisis, the cost of living crisis and the economic crisis have one cause: Tory government?

[Rachel Maclean]

That was a flight of fantasy with several hundred questions. I am happy to engage with the hon. Lady on the detail of the clauses in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but I am proud of the Government’s record in bringing forward levelling-up across the whole country, with house building backed by billions of pounds of public funding and taxpayers’ money. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), our house building record is greater than that of her party for the entire time they were in government.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Second Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, because the Bill risks significantly undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, for example the Uyghur, who are currently victims of grave and systemic human rights abuses, is incompatible with international law and the due diligence of public bodies, undermines the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights by conflating these with the State of Israel and running counter to UN Security Council Resolutions, singles out the State of Israel in effect creating the issue it intends to solve, seeks to enforce its provisions by giving unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State beyond those enjoyed by the police and the security services, places unprecedented restrictions on the ability of public bodies, many of them directly elected, to express a view on policy, current, proposed and desired, has potential widespread and negative impacts on local government pension funds, limits freedom of speech and is likely to be subject to repeated and extended legal challenge by reason of its conflict with established legal principles; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward alternative proposals.”

I recognise the Secretary of State’s very touching words on Lord Kerslake. He was Lord Kerslake to some, but Bob to those of us who have benefited over many years from his ceaseless encouragement and advice. His knowledge of central Government and local government was unparalleled. His commitment as a genuine public servant who cared deeply about people will be badly missed. He was taken from us too soon, and I would like to add our voice to the very touching tribute from the Secretary of State.

It is perhaps in the spirit that Bob would have wanted that I approach the Bill—on a note of consensus, on something that ought to be a matter of consensus for Labour Members. I recognise that there are deeply held feelings about these issues, and I want to acknowledge that Members in this debate must be heard. I shall, of course, welcome interventions, but I will seek to balance that with the need of Members on both sides of the House, whether I disagree with them or not, to make their views known.

I want to begin by saying to the Secretary of State that we recognise the problem which he says the Bill is designed to tackle. It is therefore deeply frustrating that the Government have introduced a Bill that is needlessly broad, with sweeping, draconian powers and far-reaching effects. Instead of Members on both sides of the House having the opportunity to come together and welcome long-overdue action, he faces genuine, legitimate, heartfelt opposition from Conservative Members; from groups who face persecution, such as the Uyghur, who thought that we stood with them; from human rights groups; and from local government. I have watched the Secretary of State lose Government Members because of the tone that he has struck in the debate. I hope that as the debate progresses he will listen to some of those concerns.

I say to the House that it does not have to be this way. It is not, in our view, wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In fact, there is a long history of councils, universities and others taking a stance in defence of freedom and human rights. In the case of elected councils, their electors often expect them to do just that. There is a difference between legitimate criticism of a foreign state’s Government and what some individuals and organisations have tried to do in recent years, which the Secretary of State outlined well. To seek to target Israel alone, to hold it to different standards from other countries, to question its right to exist, to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, and in doing so create hate and hostility against Jewish people here in the UK is completely wrong.

There is at least one example of a publicly funded body that has taken a stance against the state of Israel that has effectively cancelled Jewish culture here in the UK. We will always stand against that. Most public bodies would not dream of behaving like that, but even one incident has unacceptable and far-reaching consequences for the Jewish community, increasing hate and hostility at a time when antisemitic attacks have reached a peak, children learn behind gates, and security guards stand outside synagogues.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is speaking really well, and she gave a remarkable Second Reading speech on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

The hon. Lady is trying to suggest that examples of BDS are few and far between, and that it is a legitimate field of activity for public bodies to comment on foreign policy and express ethical concerns. The trouble is, time and time again, it is about BDS and it is about targeting Israel. When the Welsh Government issued a procurement advice note two years ago, they were trying to single out Israel yet again, and no Labour MP said a thing about it. Is that not the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel strongly that BDS offers no meaningful route to peace either for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. I can assure him that when BDS is used as an argument for the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, not only will I speak out but I have spoken out time and time again. As far as I know, I am the only Member in the House—there may be others, and I apologise in advance if I have missed anyone—who has gone directly to take on those who argue for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel and for a one-state solution. I have taken on that argument, because I firmly believe that it is wrong and unhelpful. As I have just made clear to the House, this might not be every public body—I do not believe for a moment that it is—but one incident is too many. It has profound effects on the Jewish community.

That is why so many people in the Jewish community have fought long and hard for action to tackle this problem, and it is why we support them. In fact, we were sufficiently concerned about it that earlier this year we tried to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that when councils take ethical decisions, they do so in line with an ethical framework and Government guidance and apply those decisions across the board, not seeking to single out any one country for differential treatment. We believe that that amendment offered clarity and certainty to our elected officials and councils, and security for the Jewish community, and we were disappointed that the Government voted it down. However, we continue to believe that there is not—and never should be— disagreement between us on that principle.

I also do not believe there is disagreement between us on whether we oppose the policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Opposing that policy is a long-standing Labour position, and it will not change. As I said to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) a moment ago, it is something I feel so strongly about that I have taken the opportunity to debate with those who expound that policy and who believe in a one-state solution, which we thoroughly oppose. I have made the case that talk of a one-state solution and boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel offers no meaningful route to peace for Palestinians or Israelis. Over the past decade, the one bright spot on a very difficult horizon that I have seen on my trips to the middle east has been the co-existence and joint venture projects that have flourished, through which BDS drives a coach and horses.

We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic. Our concern is with those who have tried to whip up hostility towards Jewish people under the cover of either BDS or the targeting of Israel, particularly those who seek the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state. That is what we must deal with, in a way that is enforceable—that has real impact and real teeth—and that tackles the problem it is designed to solve.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have worked hard to ensure that we are not antisemitic, and that for the Minister to display what he has done in the Chamber does no good to our democracy? This is a very badly written Bill—it is not a good Bill—and the Minister’s suggestion that anyone who votes against it is antisemitic is just a disgrace and something he should withdraw.

[Lisa Nandy]

This is a debate that needs far less heat and far more light, because we are talking about real people—about communities in the UK who are among the most marginalised and discriminated against in our country. I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging in his opening remarks that Labour Front Benchers are acting in good faith in the approach we have taken, but I would echo a note of caution: we should not in any sense suggest that Members, of all parties in this House, who have expressed profound reservations about the Bill in front of us can be deemed to be antisemitic. They are not. They are participating in democracy and giving voice to real concerns. They are doing what we were sent to this House to do: scrutinise legislation and ensure that it has the intended impact. I encourage Members to continue to do so, because a Bill that is designed to promote and protect community cohesion can proceed only with the broadest possible consent.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has just said, because I also found the Secretary of State’s suggestion that those of us who oppose the Bill are condoning antisemitism, or are in fact antisemitic, to be disgraceful. Has she, like me, seen a public letter to the Secretary of State from a number of British-based Jewish academic experts in the fields of Jewish studies, the study of antisemitism and Israel studies, including my dear friend Professor Francesca Klug OBE, visiting professor of human rights at the London School of Economics? They have expressed the view that this legislation is damaging and wrong-headed and should be withdrawn. Will the hon. Lady confirm that that is a letter from leading British Jewish academics?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for raising those concerns. We are keen that all the voices in this debate ought to be heard; I have heard different views from across the Jewish community, but I have to say to her that the overwhelming view I have heard is that there is a desperate need to tackle this very real problem. The strength of feeling in the Jewish community that we must legislate to tackle this problem is overwhelming. I do not want for one moment to deny that that is what I have heard in my frequent conversations with the Jewish community, but as I will outline, there are serious problems with the Bill that need to be addressed.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady for giving way, and for the tone she has struck. As someone who has a significant proportion of Jewish constituents, I speak in defence of them. The BDS movement and its increased presence on university campuses has seen the Community Security Trust state that there has been a 22% increase in campus antisemitism. We are now in a situation where many of my constituents will not go to university because they face such hostility, so the enthusiasm for the Bill may not be about its drafting, but about the aims that it seeks to achieve.

[Lisa Nandy]

That is absolutely right. In fact, the Union of Jewish Students, which has expressed real concerns about the Bill—the very students who have often been the targets of the appalling abuse and attacks that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—is clear that it wants to see this problem tackled. I hope that is a basis on which we can proceed across the House in a debate that, as I have said, needs far more light and far less heat. I remain confident that, with good faith and good will on everyone’s part, we can find a way to tackle what is a very real problem for the Jewish community in this country.

I will take a moment to explain why the Bill does not do what the Government intend it to do. Clause 1 attempts to ban public bodies from taking decisions influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.”

We have commissioned legal advice that suggests there are two readings of the clause. I would just say to some Conservative Members that a King’s counsel—a distinguished King’s counsel who happens to disagree about the legal impact of this legislation—deserves a hearing and deserves respect. If in a democracy those who disagree with us are accused of acting dishonestly or in bad faith, we are in a very dark place indeed. That legal advice suggests that on first reading the clause applies only when it relates to specific territories. That would create the absurd situation where public bodies could refuse goods from China because of general disregard for human rights, but could not refuse cotton goods from Xinjiang because of concerns about genocide against the Uyghur population.

The second reading of the clause, which I imagine is what the Government intend, is that public bodies are banned from having any regard at all to human rights violations of foreign Governments unless they are expressly permitted by this Government. There are a few exceptions in the schedule referred to in clause 3—labour rights, bribery and the environment—but not genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, or systematic torture or grave breaches of the Geneva convention. After the horrors of the second world war, it was British diplomats who held the pen, crafting the international legal system that recognised that some crimes are so grave that they should never be acceptable. What has changed that gives the Government grounds to create two tiers through this Bill—to deem slavery unacceptable, but remain silent on the issue of genocide? Have we given up believing that these things matter?

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my concerns that the Bill will weaken our voice on the international stage in tackling human rights abuses? It will enable many regimes with appalling human rights records, or companies that have track records of labour law violations or environmental recklessness, to continue without consequence, including where those abuses are incompatible with international law.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern, which has also been raised with me. I defer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who I know will make a contribution in due course.

What is not clear to me and other Labour Members is why the Government have sought to draw this Bill’s powers so broadly. It is not just breathtaking in its reach; it is deeply contradictory, because the Bill itself accepts that there will be times when public bodies will take a view about the conduct of foreign Governments on specific grounds, such as modern slavery. In fact, the Secretary of State wrote to councils last year urging them to do so in the case of Russia, and has since signalled his intent to add Russia and Belarus to the list of exceptions allowed by clause 3. Only two years ago in this House, I sat on these Benches as we proudly and rightly passed the Magnitsky regulations, which recognised the power of economic sanctions to direct state conduct and raise global standards. However, the Secretary of State is now proposing a Bill that will prevent—for example—the Department for Business and Trade from taking human rights violations into account when deciding whether to grant export credit guarantees. Surely he can see the problem. The Cameron Government became a signatory to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights a decade ago. The Government’s own action plan makes it clear that businesses have a corporate responsibility to uphold human rights and to monitor those they deal with commercially. After years of promising to hand over powers and spending decisions to Mayors, combined authorities and councils, is the Secretary of State seriously saying that they are not capable of exercising the same duty?

There are other areas of deep confusion in this Bill that we believe will open up the prospect of ongoing legal challenge, and I know that has been raised by Conservative Members. Clause 1 bans action that a reasonable observer would conclude is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign Government, but on these deeply contested notions what constitutes a “reasonable observer”?

Clause 4 is even more problematic. It prohibits public bodies from expressing a view not just about how they intend to act, but how they would have done so had the law not been in force. It is difficult to know how public bodies, particularly those that are elected, should respond to this. In recent years, many councils have, for example, been asked by their own residents not to use Chinese companies with links to Xinjiang. My own council is one of them. Under this Bill, faced with thousands of people signing a public petition, a council would not even be able to give any indication of whether or not it agreed with its own residents. Our legal advice suggests that this extraordinary situation is likely to be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights.

Clause 3(7) creates even more confusion. It singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights as places for which no exemption can ever be made. The long-standing position of the UK Government is to support a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines that protects and respects the security and right to self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This clause drives a coach and horses through that, according the occupied territories the same protected status as Israel and in effect conflating the two. It contradicts established Government policy, and I find it hard to believe that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has agreed to this. I note the questions from two Conservative Members, and I am deeply concerned that it appears that the Government and the Secretary of State have not even asked that question. It appears that Conservative Members have seen a circular from Foreign Office officials raising objections to this Bill, yet the Secretary of State has not. I urge him to look closely at that matter before the Bill proceeds.

[Dr Whitford]

The hon. Lady talks about when she has visited Israel or Palestine, as I have done regularly with the breast cancer projects I am involved with in Gaza and the west bank. The thing is that the settlements are illegal under international law, and they have been condemned by the Government in the past. Obviously, companies, pension funds, councils and devolved Governments who try to act ethically and do not wish to purchase settlement goods, which are illegal, would be floored by that clause. How does that match with current UK policy?

[Lisa Nandy]

I hope, as the debate goes on, that there may be an answer to this, but I have to confess that so far I am at a loss as to what it might be. Where does this leave our commitment to international law, given that it cuts across UN resolutions, as Conservative Members have highlighted, and weakens Britain’s stated support for a two-state solution, as the hon. Member has said?

The legal advice we have received strongly suggests that this is likely to be in breach of our international law obligations. Furthermore, it will force the UK courts, which have traditionally been reluctant to adjudicate on issues relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to take a view. All of these confusing and contradictory measures raise the very real prospect of protracted legal challenge. One of the Conservative Members recently called this woolly. Surely the Secretary of State can see that protracted legal challenge over the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the practice of boycott, divestment and sanctions would not be in the interests of community cohesion, which is the very thing this Bill is designed to protect.

[Dawn Butler]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. A lot of people are wishing to speak, and given that she has made one intervention, I will make a bit of progress.

As if that were not bad enough, it seems that nobody in Government has thought of the consequences for local government pension funds, which is arguably the one area where councils have to have a global outlook. Let me give the Secretary of State a practical example. In recent months, as he will know, three Israeli companies have moved their money outside Israel due to concerns about the financial risks created by the contentious reforms to the judiciary. If a local government pension fund were to do the same, this Bill would open it up to legal challenge, forcing it to prove to a reasonable observer, whatever that is, that its decision was on financial, not moral grounds.

Writing in the Local Government Chronicle, the director of pensions at Westminster Council asks what happens

“where an analyst has anticipated that a company’s value will decrease because of ESG decisions it has made… if that strategy falls within the new law’s definition of not being in line with UK foreign defence policy, and the law therefore states that the fund must remain invested, and the fund therefore loses value, who will pay for that?... The government’s current message is that ‘this is not designed to get in the way of ESG factors, excepting the very narrow area of UK foreign or defence policy’. But this is absolutely not a very narrow area.”

He adds:

“We could end up in a scenario with never ending arguments involving ESG factors versus foreign and defence policy.”

Surely that cannot be the intention of this Government.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I think I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said this afternoon. She will remember, as I do, how many of us on the Opposition Benches, and indeed in all of the House, spent years of our lives campaigning against the apartheid regime. That was a very strong policy within local authorities and it had real impact at the time, so much so that when Nelson Mandela came to this country to thank people, he included them in those thanks. Does she believe that, had this legislation been enacted at the time, it would have prevented those authorities from taking the action they did to oppose apartheid?

[Lisa Nandy]

South Africa is obviously a different case, but the point my hon. Friend makes remains and is well founded, because this Bill concentrates the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talked about pensions, and there is an additional point. Whatever people may think of BDS or of an investment strategy that is ethical or otherwise, the money that sits in the local government pension scheme—and I am a member of the local government pension scheme—is the members’ money, my money. It is not the Government’s money to direct in one way or another; it belongs to the pension holders, and it is surely for them and those to whom they delegate its management to decide how it should be deployed. As she rightly says, if the Government are getting into the business of managing my pension money and I lose money because of decisions made by the Government, presumably I should be compensated.

[Lisa Nandy]

This is precisely the question that the Government have yet to answer, but we hope that will be forthcoming during this debate. I would add to what the right hon. Gentleman said that the local government pension service is already under a fiduciary duty to take prudent investment decisions based on an assessment of the financial consequence of a number of matters, including environmental and social governance, and when it divests on the basis of non-financial factors, it should follow the Law Commission direction that any financial impact should not be significant and that the decision would likely be supported by scheme members. I am not sure what happens when a local government pension fund is taking decisions that would not be supported by scheme members. We are talking about the pensions of 6 million people in this country, and I think these are important questions that the Government must answer.

I want to turn to one of our chief concerns about this Bill, which is the concentration of the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person and the implications of that for some of the most persecuted people in the world. There will be significant effects on the Uyghur in Xinjiang, who are suffering such serious crimes against humanity that the Biden Administration have recognised it as genocide. The Secretary of State will have read the impassioned letter from those groups in The Times about the effects of this Bill. Surely we cannot abandon them to their fate. For the Rohingya in Myanmar, for the Tamils in Sri Lanka and for countless others, the concern is that this bad law prevents not just economic action to uphold human rights everywhere, but solidarity with some of the most persecuted people in the world.

As was said earlier, the Bill goes further and clause 7 grants to the Secretary of State or other relevant body the power to issue notices requiring all information to be handed over, if they suspect that a prohibited statement expressing a moral or political view about foreign conduct is in the process of or about to be made, including information in subsection (8) that would normally be protected by legal privilege. Let me clear about the effect of that: this hands over to the Office for Students, the Secretary of State, and the Treasury, greater powers than those available to the security services. I know there are Members on both sides of the House who are deeply troubled by that, and those who are not should consider for a moment how they might feel about this Bill if their party was not in power.

We should not be here. We have long fought for legislation to tackle what is a real problem, and we are determined to give the Government the opportunity to do the right thing. That is why today we are proposing an alternative that allows the Government and this House to keep our promise to tackle a long-standing issue of deep concern to the Jewish community, but avoids tearing up our commitment to human rights, local democracy and free speech, in a Bill that does not even appear to tackle the very problem it seeks to solve.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady has made a number of powerful points. She will have heard me question the Secretary of State about the fact that the Bill is not country agnostic; it is directed primarily at one country and one issue, which is BDS. The question for her is, in a way, the opposite of that, which is that this problem has come to be because of decisions made by Leicester City Council and Lancaster City Council, which are Labour-run councils acting arguably in cahoots with BDS. What does she think the Labour party can do to take away the perceived requirement to have a Bill that seems, at the moment, largely to argue against BDS’s actions against Israel?

[Lisa Nandy]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and I support it, but he should please not try to tarnish Labour Members with a record on antisemitism. There are those of us who stood up not just to those who are supposed to be our opponents, but to those who are supposed to be our friends as well. And we will always do that. I give my word, and I give our word on behalf of the Labour party.

As I am about to outline, we have provided the Government with an alternative. Earlier this year we sought to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that no single country, especially in the cases that we have been describing and the world’s only Jewish state, can be singled out for different standards from others, and in doing so whip up hate and hostility against the Jewish community. It is a real problem. We provided the Government with a solution. They refused it, but we remain convinced that co-operation and consensus is the right approach to tackle what we accept is a very real problem.

Today, the Secretary of State will hear this refrain again and again from Members on his own Back Benches, and across the House: two important principles—the need to tackle racism and antisemitism, which are a scourge on our society, and the need to stand up for human rights, freedom of expression, democracy and our long-standing position on Israel and Palestine, and act in accordance with international law—and those things should never be seen as mutually exclusive or allowed to be pitted against one another.

We have a number of serious suggestions about the way that this problem can be tackled. We have outlined an alternative approach. We have provided the Secretary of State with a solution, and we urge him to take it. Otherwise, he should know that Labour Members will be compelled to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as I suspect will significant numbers of his own colleagues. It is an outcome we should all strive to avoid. If a pledge to tackle division, around which there is broad consensus, was derailed by a combative approach and a Government who refuse to listen to the wide range of voices that have expressed their concerns, that would be a crying shame. With good will and good faith on the part of the Government, we can proceed together. We have proposed how. The ball is now in the court of the right hon. Gentleman.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I want to start by saying that Labour strongly supports this Bill and welcomes the Second Reading of it today. We agree very much with the sentiment expressed by Conservative Members that the sooner and more swiftly we are able to make progress with this, the better. The movement to create a fitting national memorial to mark, to remember and, most of all, to learn from the horrors of the holocaust is something that rightly commands the support of Members on all sides of the House. So we welcome the Second Reading of the Bill and its, I hope, swift progress through the House.

The holocaust is undeniably the greatest crime of the last century. People were taken from their homes, stripped of their possessions and subjected to the horror of the concentration camps, forced labour camps and ghettos just, in many cases, because they were Jewish. The murder of 6 million Jews and so many others by the Nazis must never ever be forgotten.

I was in my early 20s when I first visited Auschwitz, and it is something I will never forget. I knew it would make an impression, but I do not think I had any real comprehension of what a deep and lasting impression it would leave on me to this very day. History lives in that camp, and we can feel the pain in the air. It is a very difficult thing to comprehend, but it is a privilege to be able to learn and to understand about the horrors of the past in order to ensure that it never happens again.

For my generation, whose grandparents lived through and, in my grandfather’s case, fought in the war and fought for the establishment of the state of Israel as somewhere where Jewish people could find a natural home and where they were safe—where they would always be safe—this is not just history. We have grown up with the stories of what happened in that era, and of why it matters so much that we remember. However, it has actually been through the work of those incredible charities and museums, and those who support them—they provide the chance to hear from those who survived and, through them, the stories of those who did not—that we have been able to understand the true horror of what human beings are capable of.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Given the experience of my predecessor in this place, who was targeted due to her allyship with the Jewish community, does my hon. Friend agree that this memorial and education centre is more important than ever before in telling the truths of the holocaust, and in remembering the 6 million lives lost to it, so that we learn those lessons and people never have to go through that kind of thing again?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Like me, she will have had the experience of going into schools and colleges in our constituencies, and had the privilege of meeting survivors of the holocaust, and watching the faces of young people as comprehension dawns of the true horror of what happened, with resolve forming in them that never again should that be allowed to happen. The power of that cannot be overestimated, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding her voice and support to the Bill.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the Secretary of State, as I do wholeheartedly, about the importance of the positioning of this memorial, and of it being right next to the mother of all democracies, with the symbolism that that provides?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. There are many, many lessons to learn from the darkest era of our recent history, but one of those lessons must surely be the importance of political courage and political leadership. Those of us on the Opposition Benches know how important that is, and that no institution is immune from the scourge of antisemitism. One of the reasons why I raced back from Manchester this morning, where I had been at a conference debating housing, was in order to be here today to say loudly and clearly on behalf of the official Opposition how strongly we support what the Secretary of State and his colleagues are doing.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Manchester, and as the MP for Bury South I am proud to represent many holocaust survivors, and I have been fortunate enough to meet them and share their stories. An institution and a museum, and more importantly an educational facility such as this, is intrinsic to us not only learning those lessons, but to making sure such things are never repeated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing we can do to honour their memories and have a legacy for them while they are still alive, is to get this project going as quickly as possible, and ultimately to get it built and used?

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. As a former student of Holy Cross College in Bury, I have met many of my hon. Friend’s constituents over the years. I know how important it is to them that they hand on the baton to the next generation, and that we do not allow this to be the moment when understanding and comprehension of what happened in that darkest moment of history is lost. They can then hand over that baton, and feel reassured that the future is safe in our hands and with future generations. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done in standing up for his community over and over again in this place. It is noticed in Bury, and it is noticed here.

With the march of time and the continued loss of survivors, the holocaust is moving from being part of lived experience to being part of history. As we begin to approach that moment, our generation should commit to teaching the next about the horrors in our past, and the lessons for the future. That is what this new, purpose built memorial in the heart of London is. It is a commitment to arm future generations against the horrors of the past, so that when we say “never again”, they can be sure we mean it. That is why Labour stands squarely behind the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Board of Deputies. We pay tribute to their work, and to the two co-chairs, Lord Eric Pickles and the right honourable Ed Balls, who have shown that this is not, and should never be, an issue that divides us.

As Karen Pollock, the inimitable chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said yesterday:

“It is crucial to remember that the Holocaust Memorial—and remembering the Holocaust in general—is not about planning permission, or square footage, or underground pipes. What these discussions are about at their heart, is people. People who were subjected to unimaginable suffering, simply because they were Jewish.”

Like many others, she has reminded me that none of us should ever make the mistake of thinking that this is history. Antisemitism did not die at the end of the holocaust. Around the world, Jewish communities have been targeted by terrorists in Germany, France, Belgium and many other countries.

Last year, anti-Jewish hate hit a record high in the United Kingdom, with abuse, threats and violent assaults levelled at Jewish children, women and men on the streets of Britain. The Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust are powerful advocates for their community. They have reminded me so often of the human cost of this, often with heartbreaking stories about the impact on their own families and children—children who go to school behind locked gates; security guards at the doors of synagogues. It shames our nation. This group accounts for less than 1% of the total religious population in the UK, but antisemitic hate crimes account for a staggering 23% of all religious hate crimes. It is completely unacceptable in a modern society where the experiences of the past are still so raw that that is happening every day in our communities, on our campuses and in our workplaces. We on the Labour Benches know that only too well and we are determined to tackle it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

From what she has chronicled, my hon. Friend reminds us how easy it is for history to be forgotten but, were it not forgotten, these incidents would not occur. That makes the creation of this memorial doubly important. Does she also agree that the argument about the location has just got to stop? The location that has been chosen puts the memorial in the centre of London where it will be visible and accessible to the largest number of people. That is what we want. We want as many people as possible to see something that will ensure they do not forget. Arguing about the location does a disservice to the memory of the 6 million Jews who were killed in the holocaust.

[Lisa Nandy]

As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks incredibly powerfully. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have taken part in the debate on the location, but that debate has run for long enough. Labour Members share the Government’s view that it is now time to move forwards with a memorial that is incredibly important to every single person in our country, but holds particular significance for our Jewish community here in the United Kingdom.

[Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I personally am not convinced by the location, but want the memorial to go ahead. If it is to go ahead, surely it must do so speedily—that is the point the hon. Lady is making. If Second Reading is passed this evening, motion No.8 on the Order Paper is about paying a Select Committee Chair to come and do a job. That is normally done—it happened with High-Speed 2—when something is going to take a long time. It is not about meetings in one or two Committees. When the hon. Lady talks about speed, what is she talking about and why are we paying someone? That indicates to me that this is going to be a long process.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As I said, I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have raised concerns about the location, including the Father of the House. It is right and legitimate that we should have a debate about that, and it is right, fair and proper that they should make their concerns known. Labour Members believe that this is the right location and that it is important that we do not delay any further. We believe that it is important that the hybrid process is followed; that is the process set out for the path of the Bill. We cannot make that process any quicker, but we can remove any unnecessary obstacles and delay. We know that that is the Government’s intention and we will support them in that.

As I said a moment ago to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the battle for progress is never won. My father and his generation were involved in fighting the race relations struggle. My dad came to this country from India in the 1950s, and dealing with racism and discrimination is something that he, I and my family have dealt with all our lives. It was one of the motivating forces for me to go into politics—seeing the impact of that on people around me and people in my community. That generation went on to deliver the Race Relations Act 1976, and helped to build the architecture of modern Britain that aims to make racism and discrimination a thing of the past. They remind me constantly that that battle is never won, and it falls to every generation to pick up the baton and fight those battles anew. That is what we are determined to do, and that is why we strongly support this memorial and its location next to the Palace of Westminster, within walking distance of the heart of our democracy and the centre of decision making, to show how important it is to us in this place that we never, ever forget.

There are many people in the other place who have worked on this matter. The Secretary of State mentioned Lord Austin, but I also think of Lord Dubs, who came to this country on the Kindertransport, has been a powerful advocate for child refugees and is someone we admire greatly. It pays tribute to the work they have done over many, many years that this House is speaking with one voice, on all sides of the House, to try to move forward.

[Mr Baron]

The speakers from the Front Bench have so far been generous in giving way. I appreciate what the hon. Lady said about the sincerity of those who are concerned about the location. We in our family have Jewish blood, and I do not think there is any doubt about the sincerity of all views on this. Would she acknowledge that, while we all agree there needs to be a national holocaust memorial, a lot of people within the Jewish community oppose the siting of the memorial that the Bill will install, if there is a vote and it passes? That should be acknowledged. They include people such as Maureen Lipman, Malcolm Rifkind, former rabbis, Jonathan Romain, Sir Richard Evans and several holocaust survivors.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am more than happy to acknowledge that and to restate the commitment that we on the Labour Benches do not doubt the sincerity of those engaging in this debate. We acknowledge the strength of feeling and the different views that exist within the Jewish community and across the country, as well as in this place and on the Government Benches in particular. The hybrid process provides an opportunity for those concerns to be expressed and for those debates to be had. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that, having worked with the Jewish community in this country and leaders of major Jewish organisations for a long time, I am left in no doubt about the strength of feeling among many members and leaders of the Jewish community that they support the location at this venue and that they want to see it proceed at the heart of democracy, where it matters most that we remember the past in order to shape the future.

We believe that the symbolic siting of the memorial next to this House is a demonstration that the British Government, the official Opposition, our Parliament and our nation are committed to remembering the horrors of the past and ensuring that we do not repeat them. This memorial is a vital step on that path and Labour is pleased to support the Bill today.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities provide all papers, advice and correspondence involving Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, including submissions and electronic communications, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that this review should not be led by the National Audit Office.

Let me start by saying that I am really disappointed that it has come to this. Devolution was meant to empower people in every part of Britain to “take charge of their own destiny”. This Government were elected on exactly that promise and exactly those words, and here we are standing in the House of Commons trying to persuade the Government to come clean about why they have chosen to block an independent inquiry that would help us get to the bottom of the use of public assets and funds on Teesside in the wake of some of the most serious allegations I have ever seen in my time in Parliament.

For nine years, since the Government accepted Greater Manchester’s case for greater devolution, I and many others on all sides of this House have been pressing the Government to respect the right of people in every part of Britain to know how their assets and money are being used and to close the gap that currently exists by inviting people back into the conversation, and by building a system of local and national scrutiny and accountability that is fit for purpose, backed by a Government who are willing to open the books.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I think the key point in this debate was aired in what the hon. Lady said a moment ago, when she said that some of the most serious allegations she has ever heard aired in this House have been made. Will she stand with those allegations? At the moment, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) has alleged “industrial-scale corruption”. The hon. Lady has been very careful in all her public utterances, as indeed has he outside this Chamber, to avoid repeating that claim. Does she agree with him, or does she not?

[Lisa Nandy]

The problem, as the right hon. Member well knows, is that Members of this House and, more importantly, people on Teesside simply do not know the answer to that question. Serious allegations have been raised not just by Members on the Opposition Benches, but by respected national journalists who have conducted meticulous investigations, and the point of holding an independent inquiry is that these serious allegations and the questions that have been raised need to be answered.

At every juncture and at every level of Government, when it comes to fair and reasonable questions about the South Tees development corporation, accountability, scrutiny and democratic control have broken down. It is only because of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and some tenacious, meticulous journalists, such as Jennifer Williams of the Financial Times, that we even know the bare facts of what has unfolded. People on Teesside should not have to rely on a national newspaper to discover what has been done with their assets, their community and their civic inheritance.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

If the hon. Member wants to say otherwise, she is very welcome to do so now.

[Sara Britcliffe]

Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady confirming that she will not repeat outside this Chamber the allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)?

[Lisa Nandy]

Honestly. It is about time that hon. Members stopped chirping and started paying attention.

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has accepted that an investigation is needed to give investors confidence. I saw him walking through the Chamber a moment ago, Madam Deputy Speaker—he could not get away quick enough. This is why we want to see an investigation launched without delay: to restore investor confidence and the confidence of the public in both the project and the devolution model itself.

The Secretary of State’s decision to block the National Audit Office from investigating these allegations is nothing short of bizarre. It is an investigation that is backed by the Tees Valley Mayor, by the official Opposition and by three Select Committee Chairs. The National Audit Office has the experience, capacity and independence to carry out an investigation—it has said itself it was able to do so and that the Secretary of State has the power to order that investigation—so it beggars belief that the Secretary of State has blocked that inquiry and now set up a review where the terms of reference and the members have been hand-picked by him. Then to come to the House on Monday and be unwilling—or perhaps unable—to answer basic questions about why he chose to do that is completely unacceptable. Saying that consultations were had and that the Government do not wish to set a precedent will not do. For decades, people on Teesside have made a major contribution to the UK through the steel industry. The Teesworks belongs to them and they have the right to know what is being done with it in their name.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech to open the debate. Does she agree with me, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on devolution, that we all want our regions to prosper and grow, but that things have to be done properly and be seen to be done properly?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has been a huge champion of this for communities across the country. Most importantly, our regions will not prosper and will not grow unless we can have confidence that decisions are being taken in the right way and in the public interest, and the people of that region need to know that they will benefit from those decisions. That is the point of devolution.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady not agree that Teesside did not prosper or grow for decades after the demise of heavy industry and that it was only when Ben Houchen came along and started delivering for the people that people started realising that the Conservatives on Teesside were delivering, when Labour had failed for generations?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will take absolutely no lessons from a representative of a political party that stood aside and watched as the Tees works collapsed in 2015.

Labour is therefore asking the Government to provide all papers, advice and correspondence, including Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that the review should not be led by the National Audit Office.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The hon. Member is probably aware that, in addition to the scandal that she is outlining in her excellent speech, Woking Council has today issued a section 114 notice, following its having run up £1.9 billion of debts under a Conservative-led administration, when it has core spending power of just £14 million. Does she agree that a National Audit Office investigation is important for the people of Woking as well, because there is clearly inadequate scrutiny of decision making on public money?

[Lisa Nandy]

There is a wider point here, which is that devolution matters but it matters for a reason. It matters because decisions taken closer to people, driven by the people of the place they call home and for the benefit of those people, have the ability to transform lives. We need and deserve proper robust scrutiny arrangements and accountability in every part of the country, not just some, in order to ensure that.

I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members making accusations at our doorstep about unfounded allegations and naysaying about regeneration in the north-east. They are wrong and I suspect that they know it. The Labour Front-Bench team has not made allegations against Teesworks and the development corporation, and we will not do so before any investigation reports back. What we have asked for is honesty, transparency and clarity about what appears on the face of it to be an incredibly murky situation. It is the clear breakdown of local accountability that is sufficiently alarming that an investigation by the National Audit Office is required. We want to see this resolved. Conservative Members should want to see this resolved for the benefit of people on Teesside. The South Tees Mayor believes that is the case, as do three Select Committee Chairs, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—if he did not, no investigation at all would be forthcoming. Let me be clear that the Humble Address today is about ensuring that a proper, full and independent investigation can take place in terms sufficient to provide the public with confidence in the process and the outcome of the investigation. In hand picking a panel and terms of reference, the Secretary of State has done a disservice to the principle of independent scrutiny and to his commitment to devolution, which until today I believed to be sincere. He has made it harder for confidence and transparency to return.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for being so generous with her time. Some of the claims she makes are quite serious and in this House we always want to act in the spirit of transparency and openness, but with these very serious claims, I would ask: where is the evidence—what is the basis of this in the first place? Perhaps she could outline some of the evidence she is using as the basis for making these claims in the first place.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with his colleague, the Mayor in question, who has referred himself and asked for a National Audit Office investigation. I do not know why Members on the Government Benches think his judgment is so poor that he should not have done that, but we believe he is absolutely right to have done that and we stand firmly behind him in asking for a proper investigation.

Incredibly, even by the standards of this shambolic Government, the terms of reference and the names of the panel members for this inquiry were sent to me seven minutes before this debate began. That genuinely is no way to conduct government. I assume that is where the Secretary of State is right now: sitting behind his desk knocking out terms of reference on the back of a fag packet. Clearly, I have not had much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read them, but on first sight what he has sent me looks like a system-focused review, rather than an investigation into what has happened. Ministers have still failed to give us an explanation as to why the National Audit Office cannot conduct its own investigation, a body that has capacity, resources and expertise, and is widely respected across the political spectrum. Instead, we are having a bizarre argument about the remit of a respected organisation that is patently able to conduct the investigation required. Can the Minister not see why the public would rightly raise an eyebrow?

It is completely unacceptable for the Government to hide from proper scrutiny. I remember a time when the Secretary of State could not wait to get to his place in this House. Nowadays, we barely see him. Where is he today? There is no clear justification for not ordering a comprehensive independent investigation from the National Audit Office. It cannot be right that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been handed over to a company that is now 90% in private ownership, and it appears that the Department has handed over that money and then simply walked away. This is a matter that has profound implications for people on Teesside, who rightly expect this site, through which they contributed so much to our country over so many years, to continue to benefit them and their community for years to come.

There is much we do not know about what has happened—that is the reason we need an independent investigation—but here is what we do know. When the 140-year-old steel industry on Teesside collapsed in 2015, thousands of jobs were lost along with a key political, social and economic asset for the communities of the north-east of England. In 2017, the South Tees Development Corporation began to collate over 4,500 acres of industrial land, including the site of the former steelworks, off the back of a Conservative Government promising hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer funding for the project, something we had championed and welcomed. In the face of losing that key economic and social asset, it is absolutely right that all options were considered about how to build a wide programme of regeneration around the site and that the combined authority was given the autonomy to determine the strategy to regenerate the site. Even where we have strong disagreements about policy, strategy and direction, that point is not, and will never be, in dispute.

However, in May, an extensive report by the Financial Times detailed how the Government had spent hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to support a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake. The deal never went through a public tender process. There was no consultation. There was no announcement. It also reports that those developers have secured £45 million already in dividends, despite failing apparently to invest a single penny of their own money in the project. In return for their role in securing the site, the South Tees Development Corporation awarded companies owned by the developers a 50% stake in the joint venture that would operate the project—a share transfer that also took place without any public tender. The new operating company, eventually named Teesworks Ltd, controlled the entire 4,500-acre site and its assets, including 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal. It was also given the option to buy any parcel of land on the site at market rate.

The announcement that freeport status was being awarded led the South Tees Development Corporation to fundamentally change its business model, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws and published by Private Eye. Following that, in a complex two-stage process, the two developers ended up with a 90% stake in the project, also without ever going through public bidding. According to emails received again under freedom of information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Department with responsibility for the project in Government—one official only became aware of the deal via the media in January 2022 and expressed “concern” and “surprise”. The Financial Times reports that an official at the Department’s office in the north-east responded that he had received “verbal” assurance locally that the deal was value for money. Can the Minister see why such serious concerns have been raised on both sides of the House, including by respected Members such as the Chairs of the Select Committees?

It is at this point that we called for the National Audit Office to investigate this matter in its entirety, to restore confidence for investors and the public in what was an increasingly murky affair. Indeed, the former chief executive of the Audit Commission, a public body that examined local government entities before it was disbanded by the Conservative Government, says the evidence

“calls for a full and thorough investigation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as the situation now appears far remote from the business case originally agreed with Government”.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

It is important to be clear that he is himself a former Labour councillor. The point in this debate is that we are offering an independent inquiry. As we have heard, an inquiry is under way and the reasons the NAO is not the appropriate body were set out very clearly by the Secretary of State in his letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

Can I just correct the right hon. Member? As he well knows, this is not an independent or full investigation. Perhaps he also has not had the courtesy of having been given the time by the Secretary of State to look at the full terms of reference, but it genuinely beggars belief to try to claim that this is somehow politically motivated. If Conservative Members believe that the call for a NAO inquiry is politically motivated, they might want to ask the Mayor what on earth he is doing calling for one himself.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In all of this heat, it might be wise to be clear about the independent role of the NAO. The Comptroller and Auditor General has letters patent from the King and reports to this House, not to Government. He is independent and makes his own decisions, and it was his independent decision that it would be appropriate, because of the size of the site, to offer the opportunity to do an audit. It is then a matter for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not he asks for that to happen. It is a three-legged stool, because then the local organisations have to agree to open their books, too. It is important to be clear on the record that the NAO is not making political decisions here; it is a very independent decision by the chief auditor of this country.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which absolutely concurs with my experience of the NAO. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of having written to the NAO to raise concerns, and all of us are treated with decency and impartiality by the NAO when it seeks to respond.

Unbelievably, the situation gets even more complicated. Questions were raised at that point about whether the NAO even had the ability to investigate. It turns out that it did, subject to the preparation of a suitably worded agreement between the Minister and the relevant body into which the examination is to be conducted. We called on the Secretary of State to provide such an agreement, which was met with radio silence. Into that void stepped the Prime Minister, who confirmed at Prime Minister’s questions on 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) that the Levelling Up Secretary had already announced an investigation into this matter, much to the surprise of our Front Benchers and Government Front Benchers, too. However, the Secretary of State has decided not to do so, instead preferring to hand-pick a panel of his own to investigate. Given that the Tees Valley Mayor has asked for an investigation and the NAO has the capacity and remit provided by statutory powers, we deserve to know why Ministers have decided to block that investigation, beyond what we have been told so far—that they consulted and decided against it.

Now that we have the terms of reference, let me say this to the Minister: it is utterly unacceptable to establish an inquiry that fails to ensure that all decisions that have led to the current situation are on the table, with no exclusion of factors that would impact a complete and fair assessment of whether the public interest has been protected. It must have expert support, administrative capacity and resources to ensure the same level of access that the NAO would have had. Any officials who worked at South Tees Development Corporation or public bodies on Teesside must be free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that exist.

The investigation must report back on what assessment the Department and wider Government made of the South Tees Development Corporation’s decision to transfer a 50% stake in the joint venture without any public tender process. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that from a sedentary position. Presumably, he has had a chance to read those terms of reference. It would have been nice if Members had been afforded the same courtesy. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering again from a sedentary position. That is precisely what we are attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Tees Valley Mayor is attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Chairs of the Select Committees in this House are attempting to do—establish the facts. And that is what the people on Teesside are attempting to—establish the facts. It says something about the extraordinary arrogance of this Government that they think that is an unacceptable request.

The investigation must confirm when Ministers were first made aware of the decision to increase the share to 90% and if an assessment of value for money for taxpayers was made in advance. Could the Minister confirm whether there was any discussion of the terms of reference with the relevant Select Committee Chairs—including the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Business and Trade Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—or are the Government determined to show the same contempt for Members that they are showing for people on Teesside?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was going through the events of the past week or so and the actions of Government, which smack of a cover-up. That is the fear and concern of the people of the Tees area and the wider public.

[Lisa Nandy]

I studiously avoided trying to prejudice any terms of the inquiry in advance of their announcement, but I was given seven minutes for a cursory glance at the terms of reference. If the Minister wants to tell people on Teesside that they deserve two minutes to understand the terms of reference, he is very welcome. That is arrogant and shows utter contempt for people in this country. Having looked at the terms of reference, I share my hon. Friend’s view. To many people in this country, it increasingly looks like an utter whitewash.

As far back as 2015, I raised concerns with this Government that democracy must not be an afterthought in the devolution model. Where the public have been let into the conversation, it is because of some of our brilliant Mayors across the country, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, who have chosen to go out proactively and involve the public in conversations about the things that matter deeply to them and to their lives. As has been so often said, it is our right to have that information and to be in charge of our own destiny; it should not be in the gift of whoever happens to be elected. When the respected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says that the measures that we have around transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not sufficiently robust, Ministers must take that seriously.

On the Opposition Benches, we believe that the people on Teesside are just as deserving of safeguards to ensure that the public money and assets spent and used on their behalf are used for their benefit and in their interests as the people in London, Greater Manchester or the west midlands. These are our communities; they are our assets; it is our money; and it is about time this Government started to show some respect for a country that belongs to us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady has already had a significant amount of time in which to speak, and I am not willing to give her more time to produce similar innuendo. On 20 April the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was very clear about industrial-scale corruption, but provided no further information. If Opposition Members cannot provide specific information, specific allegations and specific concerns in this debate, that will show how little interest they have in the truth rather than innuendo.

[Lisa Nandy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Lee Rowley]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Lisa Nandy]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening to make sure that some basic manners and courtesies are respected.

May I ask the Minister to stop this ridiculous politicking? I have just set out for him a series of concerning points that have been raised by a respected national newspaper, with evidence behind them, many of which are not disputed by those involved in the proceedings. I have explained to him why an independent investigation is needed, and I answered those questions on the radio this morning, as he well knows. He may not agree that the National Audit Office is the best body to investigate, but if he disagrees with that, why will he not tell us the reason? That is all we are asking for.

[Lee Rowley]

I believe the hon. Lady said on LBC this morning that no allegations of corruption were being made. In the spirit of being willing to accept interventions, I am happy to take a further intervention from her. What specific allegations is she actually concerned about?

[Lisa Nandy]

We are concerned about the fact that no value for money is being achieved in this project, because of allegations raised in the report in the Financial Times, which set out that hundreds of millions of pounds have been put behind a project that Ministers appear to have handed over and then walked away, in a company 90% of which has been transferred into private ownership, where two investors have taken—apparently; allegedly—£45 million out but put not a penny in. We want to ensure that that constitutes value for money for the public and that this asset, which belongs to the people of Teesside, will be used for the benefit of people on Teesside for generations to come. If the Minister can reassure us in detail on those points, it would be absolutely wonderful. If he cannot, why will he not commit to an independent investigation?

[Lee Rowley]

That is, finally, extraordinarily helpful. For the first time in multiple questions to the hon. Lady, she has actually given an answer. She is concerned about value for money. Excellent! We are all concerned about value for money across local government. That is why we have a best value regime, which means that the Secretary of State announces inquiries and reviews, and appoints people to undertake them. The hon. Lady and her Front Bench team know that, because we have talked about it on numerous occasions in this place. They are completely aware of the best value regime that this Government use, because in 1999 it was the Labour party that endorsed that regime as part of its legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is nice to see an outbreak of consensus in the House; the Secretary of State is a neo-socialist, and the Bert and Ernie of British politics have been reunited once more. Will he tell us, though, why he did not decide to allow the National Audit Office to investigate the serious allegations about misuse of public money and assets on Teesside?

[Michael Gove]

We consulted with the NAO and with others, and we felt that it was most appropriate to have a genuine independent inquiry. It is important to state that there is no evidence that has come to light hitherto of any suggestion of corruption, as has been alleged by some in this House. What we need to do—this was the explicit request of the Mayor of Tees Valley—is quickly, expeditiously and authoritatively to provide people with the reassurance they all want. I am afraid that at the moment there is a real risk that investment in Teesside could be frozen or chilled as a result of the programme of misinformation that has been sedulously spread by Labour party colleagues in Tees Valley.

[Lisa Nandy]

It really does beggar belief. The Secretary of State knows very well that the Mayor in question asked specifically for an NAO investigation, and that that request was backed by three Select Committee Chairs, the official Opposition and countless others. Instead, the Secretary of State has chosen to launch an investigation on his own terms, hand-picking a panel to investigate an issue where accountability has totally broken down as a result of a flawed system of accountability over which he has presided for years, without heeding the concerns of Members on both sides of the House and the NAO itself. These are not his assets; they belong to the people on Teesside, and those people deserve answers, so I ask him, seriously: how could anyone possibly have faith in this investigation process or this Government when they have chosen to block the NAO from investigating?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady once again seeks to raise question marks over what has happened in Tees Valley, as her Labour party colleagues have done. I gently point out that, under the 13 years of Labour Government, the constituencies and communities of the Tees Valley were neglected. That is why Ben Houchen was elected as Mayor. He is bringing investment to the Tees Valley that never happened during the 13 years that Labour was in power; and because it hurts so much for the Labour party to acknowledge that it is a Conservative Mayor who is delivering for working people in Tees Valley, it engages in a campaign of innuendo unworthy of the party of working people.

Leasehold Reform

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the commitment by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in January 2023 to abolish the feudal leasehold system which he has acknowledged is an unfair form of property ownership; calls on him to keep his promise to the millions of people living in leasehold properties by ending the sale of new private leasehold houses, introducing a workable system to replace private leasehold flats with commonhold and enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage in full; and further calls on the Secretary of State to make an oral statement to this House by 23 June 2023 on his plans to reform leasehold.

It is always nice to see the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) in his place, but there was a time when the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) could not resist a housing debate. His appearances in this Chamber are fast becoming rarer than the sight of a Tory councillor in the north of England. I worry that he may be in danger of becoming extinct.

Nothing, as the Minister knows and we know, matters more than a home. Security in your own home, the right to make it your own and the right to live somewhere fit for human habitation are non-negotiable. Housing may be a market, but it is not just a market—it is a fundamental human right. But for so many people in our country, what they thought would be the reward of years of hard work and the realisation of their dreams of home ownership are shattered by the reality of what it means to be a leaseholder.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend will know, in the north-west of England and north Wales, leasehold houses were sold for many years. People who were told at the time that they would be able to buy the freehold for perhaps a few thousand pounds, are now being asked for £20,000 or £30,000, which they cannot afford. They are finding that selling their house is becoming very difficult. Linked with that are often very high management fees. This is really affecting them and their lives. People tell me that they do not feel that they actually own their house anymore.

[Lisa Nandy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a tireless campaigner for his constituents affected by this issue, but I fear we will hear so much more of that from all parties in the House today. We have heard it for years that people’s homes have become a prison. The shocking lack of information—or in the case he cites, misinformation—just compounds the injustice that is felt by many. So many leaseholders face the daily reality of appalling charges and uncertainty. This issue affects millions of people up and down the country. There are nearly 5 million leasehold homes in England: the majority of flats in the private sector and 8% of all houses in England.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

My constituent has been charged £80,000, on top of really expensive mortgage payments which have gone up since last autumn’s disastrous budget. She is in tears and her mental health has collapsed. She is saying, “MP, what should I do?”

[Lisa Nandy]

The reality is that for so many of us—including myself as a constituency MP—there are few options available to people who find themselves in this situation. My own constituency had the 17th highest number of transactions for leasehold houses in the country last year. We are not just failing to solve the problem for people trapped in the situation; we are compounding it and making it worse, because more people are being sucked into this exploitative system.

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

As well as concerns for leaseholders, many people who own their homes have problems with management companies, which claim they are charging money for the upkeep of communal areas but increase the charges time after time. No one is regulating those companies; they are accountable to no one. Even as Members of Parliament it is difficult to hold them to account for their bad practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of those appalling companies could be the next big housing scandal?

[Lisa Nandy]

It is already a scandal happening in plain sight. For that reason, I hope that we will hear from the Minister when he responds that the Government will commit to implementing the Lord Best working group recommendations as quickly as possible.

This is a huge problem, but it is almost uniquely ours. Virtually every country in the world apart from England and Wales has either reformed or ended this archaic feudal model. We stand as an outlier. The good news is that we know the answer. It has been clear since we received the Law Commission proposals in 2020 that we need new legislation to end the sale of new private leasehold houses, effective immediately after Royal Assent is given. We need new legislation to replace private leasehold flats with commonhold. Lots of promises have been made to that effect, but there has been little in the way of action.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

I expect we will hear from my hon. Friend exactly what that has meant for her constituents.

[Kim Johnson]

I recently became aware of a situation in my constituency of a freeholder trying to do a lucrative deal to use the block to accommodate people seeking asylum. It tried to evict leaseholders under the pretence of a fire safety eviction plan. The residents rightly say that their sense of security has been fundamentally shaken. What does my hon. Friend think this Government should do to ensure that my constituents and millions of others are not denied the security of their tenures?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree; if we could just do what we have been promising for a long time, the reality for my hon. Friend’s constituents would be transformed from one of insecurity and anxiety to one of security and the foundation of a decent life. They are lucky to have her as their Member of Parliament to fight on their behalf.

It was in 2002 that the Labour Government introduced commonhold. There were voices even then—some of them in the Chamber today—who urged us to go further and end the injustice altogether. In the decades since, there has been growing recognition on all sides of the House that action is long overdue. In 2017, the Government said that they would legislate to prohibit the creation of new residential long leases on houses, whether newly built or existing freehold houses, other than in exceptional circumstances. That commitment was repeated in the 2019 manifesto and by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), yet leaseholders were left waiting.

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

We have had a further commitment from the Government along similar lines. In response to a Select Committee report in 2019, the Government said:

“The Government agrees with the Committee that, other than in exceptional circumstances, there is no good reason for houses to be sold on a leasehold basis.”

Four years later, thousands more properties have been sold on an unacceptable basis, and the tenants, effectively, of those properties who have been left to pay exceptional costs are not able to get out of the lease without very high charges.

[Lisa Nandy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that his Committee has done on this issue over a long period of time. As he said, there is no reason that this should continue except for a lack of political will to do what we have all acknowledged is the right thing.

Into this absurd scenario steps the current Secretary of State. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has the right intentions—indeed, his record has been clear. On 9 June last year, he told this place:

“it is absolutely right that we end the absurd, feudal system of leasehold, which restricts people’s rights in a way that is indefensible in the 21st century.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 978.]

On 30 January this year, he said in response to a question I posed to him:

“Finally, the hon. Lady asked if we will maintain our commitment to abolish the feudal system of leasehold. We absolutely will. We will bring forward legislation shortly.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]

Now, we are told that the Secretary of State was being too maximalist. We have had grumbling from Government Back Benchers that the Secretary of State is being too socialist. Downing Street has stepped in, plans are being rowed back and he is not even able to set foot in the Chamber today. It is a bit of a mess, isn’t it?

In just a few months, the Government’s whole housing policy has completely unravelled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, they crashed the economy and sent mortgages through the roof. They caved in to their own Back Benchers and, in one stroke, ensured that their own housing targets were not worth the paper they were written on. That led to dozens of councils reducing or halting altogether their house building plans, and a collapse in the projected number of houses built in coming years, in the middle of a housing crisis. The Home Builders Federation warned earlier this year that new housing supply in England would soon fall to its lowest level since the second world war.

While the Government are locked in internal battles on making basic improvements for renters, their Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—their flagship legislation that was supposed to reform an archaic planning system—is stuck in the House of Lords, where it is commonly referred to as the Christmas tree Bill, as it has so many amendments attached to it. It does make us wonder what is actually the point of this Government.

The Secretary of State was clear that he would abolish leasehold. No one thought that it would be done overnight. The Law Commission report sets out a clear road map on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage. The major leasehold groups have always recognised that it would take some time to phase out this archaic system, and so have we, but there is no excuse for inaction on the manifesto commitment to end the sale of new private leasehold houses, or for delaying the start of the process of phasing out existing leasehold and making commonhold the default of the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has often said.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is setting out a compelling case for why leasehold needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. It is not just the feudal system that needs to go but the sharp practices that go along with it. I have constituents who live in their own home. They do not own the land it is built on—they rent it—but they are not able to make even the most basic alterations to their house without getting the permission of the landowner, who then charges extortionate fees. That is just wrong, isn’t it?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is right. People who have bought their own home should have the right to change their doorbells and make basic alterations without seeking the permission of someone they have never met and will never meet. In many cases, they do not even know who that is. I pay tribute to him for his campaigning on this issue and for standing up for his constituents.

I ask Ministers to take this issue back to the Secretary of State when they next see him. He will know that the delay is a significant setback for leaseholders, who have been left waiting for far too long, and for all of those who have campaigned so hard and for so long and thought they could finally see the light at the end of a very long, very dark tunnel. Let me place on record our thanks to Katie Kendrick at the National Leasehold Campaign and Commonhold Now for all they continue to do. Tireless advocates in this place include my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and the father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).

I hope that the Minister will be keen to talk about legislation that we are told will be forthcoming in the autumn. The Labour party strongly believes that it is a no-brainer to crack down on unfair fees and contract terms, to require transparency on service charges and to give leaseholders the right to challenge rip-off fees and conditions or poor performance, along the lines we have heard about from many Members present.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. I have met many people, particularly first-time buyers, who purchased a leasehold property and were offered a discount by the developer selling the house for using its lawyer for the transaction. Surprise, surprise—the fact that it was leasehold and the pitfalls were never pointed out to them. That seems to be a common practice.

[Lisa Nandy]

That story illustrates so well that that form of tenure—that feudal, archaic system—has become home for sharp practice all over the place. We have heard that from hon. Members over and over on both sides of the House, and it is about time we stopped it. We can take important steps forward on ground rent and extending leases that will make life easier for many, but after all that has been promised, leaseholders have the right to expect their Government to go further. Will the Minister give us a cast iron guarantee that the Bill they have promised will bring to an end the sale of new private leasehold houses at the point the Bill comes into force, ensure those provisions are applied retrospectively to December 2017, a promise that has been made repeatedly by this Government, and bring in a workable system to replace private leasehold flats with commonhold?

Back in May 2021, the Government launched the Commonhold Council, an advisory panel of leasehold groups and industry experts to inform the Government on the future of this type of home ownership. Can the Minister update the House on when the Commonhold Council last met and what its recommendations are for bringing in a commonhold system? As he will know, commonhold has been in force since 2004 but has failed to take off for two main reasons: first, conversion from leasehold to commonhold requires unanimity from everyone with an interest in the block, which has proved difficult to achieve, and, secondly, developers have not been persuaded to build new commonhold developments.

Members on both sides of the House are acutely aware of how complex an issue this is to get right, but complexity is not an excuse for inaction. Credit must be given to the three Law Commission reports that represent a detailed, thoughtful road map, which Labour has committed to implement in full. It is only by implementing those proposals in full that the commonhold system will sufficiently improve, so that leaseholders can easily convert to commonhold, gain greater control over their properties and have a greater say in how the costs of running their commonholds are met.

The proposals would go further still to support those on low incomes and those who have found themselves trapped in leasehold by improving mortgage lenders’ confidence in commonhold to increase the choice of financing available for homebuyers. They would allow shared ownership leases to be included within commonhold and enable commonhold to be used for larger, mixed-use developments that accommodate not only residential properties, but shops, restaurants and leisure facilities.

We have debated these issues in this Chamber so many times since the appalling tragedy at Grenfell, when a group of people were rendered invisible to decision makers only a few miles away, with the most appalling and tragic consequences. Clearly, the burdens that homeowners have long laboured under, because of the disfunction of the property agent market and the inherent flaws of the leasehold system, have become more acute over recent years as a result of the building safety crisis and surging inflation.

That combination has already pushed many hard-pressed leaseholders to the brink of financial ruin. How can we accept that these rip-off companies, on behalf of owners we often do not even know—we do not have the right to find out who they are—are allowed to tell people whether they can even change the doorbell on their own home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, or make minor changes that would make all the difference to their lives? Who can doubt that a person’s home is, in most cases, the biggest investment they will make? So it is simply unacceptable for so many homes to be built on an exploitative and unjust business model.

Levelling up, which is included in the name of the Department, was supposed to answer a clamour for more control and agency, and give people who have a stake in the outcome and skin in the game a greater ability to make decisions about their own lives. As I have said in this place before, that is the legacy that we should seek to build, and we should do so in tribute to the tireless campaigners and in honour of those who lost their lives in Grenfell. We must build a fairer, more just system that is fit for the 21st century.

Everybody, everywhere in the United Kingdom, regardless of the type of tenure that they happen to hold, has the right to a decent, secure, safe home—full stop. We could end these arcane rules and give power back to people over their own homes, lives and communities. Politics is about choices and Labour is clear—we choose to bring this injustice to an end. Change is coming and the Government now have to decide: will they enable that change, or seek to block it? Whose side are they on?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It takes some brass neck from a Government whose Prime Minister has two fixed penalty notices to accuse us of “moral relativism” when it comes to antisocial behaviour. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he has had a busy weekend: another week, another promise and another press release—he is at least consistent with that. But I have here a document that reveals that, even on his flagship levelling-up policy, he has been able to get only 8% of his funds out of the door. He is good at getting press releases out the door—why not our money?

[Michael Gove]

In the Budget just the other week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for making sure that tens of millions of pounds were spent, including £20 million in the hon. Lady’s constituency and tens of millions of pounds across the country, in order to level up. We heard during earlier from Members across the House who have received support, had projects delivered and seen change delivered. This Government are impactful, effective and focused. On the other side of the House, I am afraid all we hear is the cackle of impotence.

[Lisa Nandy]

The desperation is absurd, Mr Speaker—8% of the levelling-up funds have been spent. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Budget, because in just one day his Government spent three times more on a tax cut for the richest 1% than they have managed to spend on the whole of the north of England in well over a year. Doesn’t that just sum the Government up? They can get their act together when it comes to the 1%, but when it comes to investment in our town centres, local transport, decent housing and delivering on a single one of the levelling-up missions, why do the rest of us always have to wait?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady does not have to wait for the truth. The truth is that, in the Budget, we adopted a policy put forward by the Labour shadow Health Secretary to get waiting lists down. Now that a Conservative Government are actually acting, the Labour party turns turtle on it. That is no surprise coming from the hon. Lady. When we published our White Paper on levelling up, she said that our levelling-up missions were the right thing; in fact, she wanted an additional mission. Now she says that those missions should be scrapped. One position one week, another position the next. Inconsistency, thy name is Labour.

Building Safety

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We want to see every developer sign the remediation contract and urgently move to fix the unsafe buildings and free leaseholders who have been trapped for too long. Throughout this process, we have supported steps to speed that up and provide support to leaseholders. In that spirit, I welcome the statement and I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity in dealing with this problem, nor the deeply held convictions on all sides of the House.

However, I fear that the collective will of this House to see that done is being damaged by what appears to be an increasingly dysfunctional approach from the Government. Last week the Secretary of State was on social media threatening major house builders with a nationwide ban if they failed to sign up to the contract within a matter of days. He is 100% right to say the developers should pay, but it undermines his case when his own Department had not even managed to send the contract to them.

That really matters, because until builders sign, leaseholder groups remain in limbo. They need more than tough talk; they need clarity and competence. For the 10 developers who signed the initial pledge but not the contract, which as the Secretary of State rightly says includes Galliard Homes, Ballymore and—shamefully, given its role in Grenfell—Rydon Homes, will he be using the powers at his disposal to designate the developers who cannot be granted planning permission? Crucially, can he tell us from when?

The Secretary of State is right to say this is a step forward, but there are many more steps to go. Leaseholders need not another deadline, but real action and hope on the horizon. Can he spell out exactly what this action will mean for developments that have already begun under those developers and that have already received planning consent? Will he be using the powers at his disposal to issue remediation orders to force them to fix their buildings in the meantime? Can he also tell us whether the 39 who have signed the contract will be obliged to fix all critical fire safety defects, as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022, and what will happen if they do not? There is a gap between the contract and the Act, and we need to make sure that the cost of that gap is not borne by leaseholders.

The contract, the Secretary of State says, will cover over 1,000 buildings. Given that his own Department has estimated that there are between 6,000 and 9,000 unsafe 11 to 18-metre buildings alone, it clearly only deals with a fraction of the problem. How does he plan to assist leaseholders in buildings with defects that are outside the scope of the contract in getting them remediated? Remediation remains painfully slow—something he knows and has rightly acknowledged—but the contract stipulates only that repairs and remediation must be carried out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Again, I push him for hard timescales and deadlines.

On the issue of who is responsible, may I again ask the Secretary of State why British house builders are being asked to pay, while foreign developers and the companies that made the materials used in affected buildings are still not? That is a basic question of justice.

We should all be moving heaven and earth to right this wrong, yet the House of Lords Committee that scrutinised amendments to the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022 found that that instrument contained an unintentional drafting error that excluded parent and sister companies from being considered as associated with the landlord. That meant that landlords could avoid the £2 million net worth threshold above which they must not pass on to leaseholders costs for repairing historical defects. Despite that error as a result of a mistake at the Secretary of State’s Department, no compensation has been forthcoming for leaseholders who have had to pay remediation costs, and no plans are in place to alert those leaseholders to the possibility of applying to a tribunal to seek cost recovery. What is the Department doing to identify affected leaseholders and inform them that an appeal route to recover costs is available to them?

Finally, I say to the Secretary of State that there is, I think, cross-party agreement now that this is not the only issue for leaseholders. Leasehold is a feudal system that has no place in a modern society. It is time that we ended—abolished—the scandal of leasehold once and for all, and ended the misery for the far too many people who are trapped in that feudal system. Labour appreciates what he has done to move this desperate situation forward, but it remains in his gift to fix it once and for all, and we would fail in our duty if we did not take every opportunity to urge him to do so.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the thoughtful and detailed way in which she has responded to the announcement, and for the support from her and colleagues across the House for the work that we have undertaken.

The hon. Lady asks about contracts and the speed with which they have been signed. Again, just to inform her and the House, we ensured that developers were given a copy of the contract on 30 January, when it was published. A final version was sent to developers with minor alterations on 21 February. The execution version of the contract depended on the developers themselves providing the Department with a list of affected buildings, so it was the work of developers, not of the Department, that led to the late signing of contracts, but I am grateful to all who have now signed.

The hon. Lady asks about the responsible actors scheme, when it will be implemented and the effect it will have. We will lay details of the responsible actors scheme next week. I want to allow some of the 11 who have not yet signed a little leeway to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities. The letters that I have written to the directors of the companies concerned will, I think, help to concentrate their minds to ensure that they have a chance to sign before we lay the responsible actors scheme details next week.

The hon. Lady asks if the powers in the 2022 Act will be used for those who will not have signed by that time. They absolutely will. She asks if we will fix all critical features. All life-critical features in medium and high-rise buildings will be addressed by developers. It is the case that with buildings under 11 metres, there are some fire safety issues, but we have to look at them case by case—some will be life-critical; some will not. Our cladding safety scheme, which addresses mid-rise buildings specifically—those between 11 and 18 metres—should, I hope, deal with the delay, which she rightly points out, in dealing with the fire safety issue for that crucial section of our housing sector.

The hon. Lady makes the point about foreign developers and the need to tackle them, and I quite agree with her. It is important that we use all the tools in our power, and we are exploring sanctions, criminal options and others. The one thing that I would say is that there is one jurisdiction—not a foreign jurisdiction but an adjacent one—where action has not been taken to deal with some of those responsible, and that, of course, is Wales. I ask her to work with me to ensure that the Welsh Labour Government take appropriate steps to deal with the situation in Wales. We stand ready to work with them and with all parties in that regard.

The hon. Lady also asks about the need to abolish the invidious and feudal system of leasehold. As someone who was born in Scotland—mercifully, a country free from that system—I can say only that this is one area where I hope that England at last catches up with one part of the United Kingdom that is, in that respect at least, more progressive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I wish the Secretary of State good luck with that. Last week, he told ITV News that,

“nobody will get in the way of making sure we get money to those who are vulnerable and who deserve it”.

Was he referring to the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?

[Michael Gove]

Keir Starmer.

[Lisa Nandy]

Seriously, the Secretary of State no longer has the power to sign off on a park bench. There are now reports of significant underspends in his Department that are about to be clawed back by the Treasury. Can he guarantee to the towns crying out for investment in town centres, high streets and affordable housing that the full allocation of the towns fund, the future high streets fund and the affordable homes programme will be spent? If he cannot, will he tell us who is to blame—him, or the Chancellor?

[Mr Speaker]

Just before the Secretary of State replies, I remind him that we should not use the name of the Member but their constituency, and also that he is certainly a right hon. Member.

Capital Projects: Spending Decisions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I have lost count of the number of times that we have had to drag Ministers from this shambolic—[Interruption.] To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities what is his assessment of the capital projects and spending decisions in his Department.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am glad we know what question we are being asked. Levelling up is one of the defining missions of this Government. Whether it is moving 22,000 civil servants outside of London by 2030 and backing overlooked town centres and high streets, or devolving power and money away from Whitehall and Westminster, this Government are delivering for the people of this country. There has been significant focus on the mechanics of government in recent days. Even if the question asked today was not that clear at the outset, it is absolutely the case that processes change and may apply at times in different ways.

We are working within a new delegation approach with the Treasury, which involves Treasury sign-off on capital spend. We will always work closely with the Treasury. We value its focus on value for money; it values and shares our mission to level up the country as a whole, and we will continue to do that. We are making good on our promise to spread opportunity across the country, with £9.6 billion of levelling-up funds announced since 2019, on top of the £7.5 billion commitment to the nine city-based mayoral combined authorities in England. That includes £3.2 billion of funding via the towns and high street funds, £3.8 billion from the levelling-up fund, £2.6 billion from the UK shared prosperity fund and £16.7 million from the community ownership fund.

There has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whether capital or revenue; no change to our policy objectives; no dilution of our ambition; and there are no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. Four years ago, this Government promised the British people a stronger, fairer and more united country. It was a promise embodied in levelling up, and it is a promise we are going to keep.

[Lisa Nandy]

It appears that nothing is going right in this place today. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to drag Ministers from this shambolic, failing Department to the House to account for their failures—failures to deliver and failures to understand the impact of our money that is being spent. An extraordinary report in the Financial Times today suggests that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been banned from spending any new money on capital projects without approval from the Treasury. It follows a damning National Audit Office report, which provided evidence that the Department had no idea about the impact of the money that it was spending, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee made an assessment that billions of pounds of our money were being wasted, because the Government had engaged in a programme without any understanding of the impact of that programme.

If this report is true, we are in the absurd situation of having a Secretary of State who does not even have the authority to sign off on a park bench. Is this true? If so, what is the Government’s assessment of what that means for the levelling-up agenda, of which a third round of spending has just been announced, and for tackling the housing crisis? Is it true that this decision by the Treasury was prompted by unauthorised spending commitments made by the Secretary of State at the convention of the north to spend money on improving appalling housing standards, after the desperate death of a two-year-old boy in Rochdale? I understand that the Secretary of State is in Rochdale today. How can he possibly tell housing associations to sort themselves out if he cannot sort out his own Department? We deserve to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that a Secretary of State who is finally—belatedly—spending money on improving housing standards is a Secretary of State who has gone rogue, because that would be very serious.

The rumours are swirling that there is huge underspend in the Department. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, yet I understand that the affordable housing budget has not been spent and that there are levelling-up funds that have not been spent either, which will now be clawed back by the Treasury. Is that true? Will the Government publish the correspondence between the Departments about this matter? It is our money, and we deserve to know.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her questions. There was a significant amount of hyperbole in there and a significant amount of suggestion and inference, but the reality remains, as I confirmed in my initial response to her question, that there has been no change to budgets, capital or revenue. There has been no change to our policy objectives, no dilution of our ambition to level up, and no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State does what she does best, which is to heckle from a sedentary position, but I will try to answer her questions. She suggests that there has been a failure to deliver. I would talk to the communities up and down the land that have been given these funds, opportunities and possibilities. We see delivery daily. I see it in my constituency; towns are being transformed through the towns fund, which has been providing funding since 2019.

The shadow Secretary of State asked a question about capital spending; I answered it in my last response. She also asked about the implications for the levelling-up agenda. There are no implications for the levelling-up agenda.