Section 21 Evictions

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have spoken to every single Government Minister about my opposition to their plans. Section 8 uses a court-based process. It takes around eight months to get somebody out of a property using section 8. If a person is guilty of antisocial behaviour or is well behind on the rent—measures cannot be taken until somebody is about two months behind—it will take months. It is not that much of a problem for Legal and General, Grainger, Fizzy Living or whatever. They have thousands of properties. If they have a few dodgy tenants, they can blend that problem across their whole estate, so everybody pays for the tenants who make trouble, do not pay their rent or behave in an antisocial manner. What about the small landlord?

I like it when the Opposition talk about business. They always talk about small and medium-sized businesses, as do I. They say that we should abolish section 21, but if someone with one or two properties has a tenant who does not pay their rent for eight months, for whatever reason, that can be devastating to their investment, so lots of SMEs will exit the marketplace, particularly if we abolish section 21 without first reforming court- based process.

When the section 21 measures were introduced in the Housing Act 1988, we saw a massive increase in supply, which has been very good for tenants. The reality is that in most parts of the country, most yields on properties—the return on capital investment—are pretty low. We are looking at a rental yield of 2% to 4%. Interest rates will be 5%, 6% or higher, so if landlords borrow money to buy a property, most will not get an annual return. Most landlords are not profiteering from the private rented sector—far from it.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is appropriate for people who live in rented accommodation to be subject to the vagaries of the market? We are talking about people who live their lives in these homes. What exactly does he envisage they will do in this scenario?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point. The vast majority of people in the private rented sector are happy with the shorter-term nature of rented accommodation. I wish the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, would not shake his head and would listen to what I say. There is a cohort of people who want to live in rented accommodation permanently. They want it as their family home. I absolutely agree that the Government should provide accommodation for those people. The Government should invest in this much more, and provide long-term, affordable rented accommodation and social rented accommodation. That is definitely the Government’s job where there is market failure.

I concede that there are market failures for people who want to live in permanent rented accommodation. I am not against the Government stepping in and ensuring that can happen. However, if they step in, tell the private rented sector to ensure that, and set out the rules that apply to someone who wants to make an investment in the sector, the reality is that we will get a reduction in investment in the private rented sector, which will mean a reduction in supply, which will make it more difficult for the tenants on whose behalf Members are speaking. That is the reality of the situation. So, yes: we should make greater public investment in long-term rental accommodation to deal with this issue. However, we should not tell landlords, who invest their private money in the private rented sector, that they have to let their property for life, which is what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is considering.

If the hon. Gentleman wants the private rented sector to do that, a way of dealing with the issue would be to offer incentives for that. We could look at capital gains tax, for example; perhaps people who are willing to rent their property for a much longer period—for five or 10 years, or maybe even for life—could get beneficial capital gains tax treatment. Alternatively, we could reverse some of the changes we made in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015, in which we restricted mortgage interest in the private rented sector; that was pretty damaging for lots of landlords in the sector. We could say to landlords, “We are no longer limiting the way you can deduct interest against your annual rental income, as long as you’re willing to rent your property out for longer, or for life, to give security of tenure to those kinds of tenants.”

I will conclude very shortly, Ms Nokes. The other unintended consequence of what the hon. Gentleman proposes is that private rented sector landlords will prioritise the best tenants. They will not take a risk because of concerns about non-payment of rent. You are going to disadvantage the people you seek to protect through the measures that the Government are planning and that the Opposition—

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech; he is a powerful advocate for his constituents.

All private renters deserve a safe and secure home. According to the charity Crisis, 4.4 million households live in the private rented sector, including 1.3 million families with children and 382,000 households over the age of 65. Government statistics show that nearly 20,000 households in England faced homelessness in the last financial year, after having received a section 21, or no-fault, eviction notice. It shows that evictions more than doubled in the last year and are a leading cause of homelessness in England. Although there are landlords who use section 21 properly—for a host of reasons, including to combat things such as antisocial behaviour—Shelter has highlighted that there is a significant proportion of rogue landlords, who use section 21 as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities, preventing tenants from accessing safe, decent and secure homes.

In its 2019 manifesto, the Conservative party pledged a “better deal for renters”, including abolishing no-fault evictions. This year’s Queen’s Speech included a rental reform Bill, one of the main elements of which was to abolish no-fault evictions by removing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. According to the Government, doing so would provide security for tenants in the private rented sector, and empower them to challenge poor practice and unfair rent increases without fear of retaliatory eviction. That Bill was meant to be introduced during this parliamentary Session, but just a few weeks ago it was reported that the then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), was reviewing the policy, and that banning no-fault evictions could be delayed or even scrapped altogether. Two weeks ago, the then Prime Minister was forced to confirm that the ban would go ahead as planned. It is interesting to note that the then Secretary of State said last week that the Government would

“introduce the rental reform Bill in the course of this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 355.]

That was echoed by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who said in response to a written question just yesterday:

“Ensuring a fair deal for renters remains a priority for the Government. We intend to legislate in this parliament.”

I hope that the Minister can give us a guarantee today, given that we have another new Prime Minister—our third in a matter of months—that the commitment to banning no-fault evictions will remain the Government’s policy. I hope he can show that the matter needs dealing with as a matter of urgency and commit to bringing forward a ban as soon as possible, because private renters really cannot wait.

Crisis is clear that banning no-fault evictions will help to reduce the number of people pushed into homelessness. However, a ban could risk an increase in evictions through unaffordable rent rises. The Government need to ensure that there are effective protections against that. Rents are increasing sharply across the country. According to the property website Rightmove, in July this year the average advertised rent outside London was 11.8% higher than the year before; in London, it was up by 15.8%. In August, Shelter reported that more than 3,400 households in the private rented sector were evicted by bailiffs between April and June this year—up 39% on the previous quarter.

Research by Shelter found that 64% of private renters said the current economic climate meant that, if they were evicted, they would struggle to afford the cost of moving. This could put more people at risk of becoming homeless. It could also risk private renters being pushed into illegal renting arrangements to make their rent more affordable because they feel they have no other choice, creating situations whereby renters are not named on tenancy contracts and are therefore powerless to get in touch with landlords over mould, damp and other maintenance issues.

Eviction causes misery, bringing uncertainty, upheaval and financial anxiety. The Government must take action and reaffirm their commitment to ending section 21 no-fault evictions as a matter of urgency. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some solid news this afternoon and a date by which that is going to happen.

New Developments on Green-belt Land

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing the debate and on her excellent opening speech. In July I attended a public meeting in Greasby community centre organised by local people who are determined to protect the green belt. The hall was absolutely packed, and it is abundantly clear that my constituents feel passionately about protecting the green belt, and I support them.

The green belt is incredibly important for our health and wellbeing, to supporting wildlife habits and to allowing nature to flourish. It has a vital part to play in our response to the climate and ecological emergency, so we need housing to be built on brownfield sites. In recent months there has been a spate of applications from developers to build homes on green-belt land in Wirral. In Wirral West, Leverhulme Estate currently has plans to build up to 260 homes in Pensby, 290 in Irby and 240 in Greasby.

There was great concern among Irby residents at the news that another developer—Richborough Estates—has come forward with a proposal that could see up to 190 news homes built across 31 acres of green-belt land on either side of Mill Hill Road. On their website, the developers say the site

“will be promoted for Green Belt release through the emerging Wirral Local Plan”,

so it seems they will be lobbying for these green fields to be released for development. I have voiced my concerns, and according to the local press the company has said it will not proceed with these plans until the site is successfully removed from the green belt and has status within the Wirral local plan. That is hardly reassuring, and the developers’ intentions remain clearly stated on their website. Local people are angry and upset, and I support them as we stand together in our opposition to Leverhulme Estate and Richborough Estates’ proposals to build houses on precious green belt.

CPRE, the countryside charity, publishes regular reports on the state of the green belt, which, among other things, track the number of submitted and approved applications for development on green-belt land. According to the most recent report, in February 2021, 793 applications were submitted on green-belt land between 2009-10 and 2019-20, of which 337—just over 42%—were approved. That resulted in the building of more than 50,000 housing units, so clearly there is not the level of protection for the green belt that there needs to be. The situation looks likely to become worse because the Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could further weaken protections. The Bill would introduce national development management policies, which would have primacy over local development plans, meaning that those plans could be easily and rapidly rendered out of date by changes to national policies.

I would like to look at the implications for Wirral West. Wirral’s draft local plan states:

“Sufficient brownfield land and opportunities exist within the urban areas of the borough to ensure that objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met over the plan period… The council has therefore concluded that the exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the green belt boundaries do not exist in Wirral.”

However, an NDMP could overrule that. I fear we are facing a power grab by central Government, so it would be helpful if the Minister could rule out a situation where, on the one hand, a council says that any new housing in its area will be built on brownfield sites and the green belt will be protected but, on the other hand, the Government set a national development management policy that overrules the local council position.

It is a matter of real concern that the current Secretary of State has previously called for the release of green-belt land for new homes and has described the green belt as

“an arbitrary and increasingly damaging holdover from seventy years ago”.

He has said:

“The green belt is not part of the problem, but is the problem. As currently constituted, it has become the central obstacle to enabling the building of the volume of houses we need, where we need them.”

It is also concerning that, back in 2019, the now Prime Minister said that the Conservatives should build 1 million homes on the green belt. No wonder people in Wirral West are concerned by the threat the Conservatives pose to the green belt. I urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to think again, and I ask the Minister to speak to them directly about this matter because it is clear that people value the green belt and want it protected.

We need more homes in Wirral and right across the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West so eloquently described. Such homes need to be affordable for first-time buyers and private renters, they need to be in locations where infrastructure such as roads, public transport and services is already in place, and they need to have high levels of energy efficiency and to be built on brownfield sites. It is a matter of real concern that, just as it has damaged the economy, the Government’s policy now threatens to further damage the environment too. The Government really must come forward with strong protections for the green belt as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful to all colleagues for attending today, and I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on securing this debate. In this my first debate as housing and planning Minister, it is good to get into the important issues that hon. Members have raised. I am sure that they will be brought back regularly throughout my time in post.

A significant number of different issues, both specific and broad, has been raised about the green belt. I will try to answer and address as many of them as I can in the time available. There are two things that mean that I will be unable to answer some questions or to directly address some specific points. First, as hon. Members are aware, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system I am unable to comment on large aspects of individual local plans and specific planning applications, given that they could be called in and dealt with at ministerial level. I apologise to hon. Members for being unable to do so, but I hope they will understand the rationale behind it. Secondly, as a number of hon. Members have indicated, there is a set of questions that are open at this time, and that is because we have a new Government—a new Administration, Prime Minister and Secretary of State. We hope and aim to close and clarify many of those questions as soon as possible, but I hope hon. Members will understand that I am not able to do so in this debate.

With those points in mind, and before turning to the individual comments of hon. Members, I will restate the Government’s clear position that the green belt is a hugely important part of our planning system. For many decades, this much loved and historical feature has protected our landscape. The national planning policy framework makes clear that the green belt has a specific purpose, that it should be released only in exceptional circumstances, as has been clear for a number of years, and that, where possible, local authorities should take into account other ways in which development can take place before looking at green belt, including a requirement to consider brownfield development.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I refer back to the countryside charity CPRE’s research. It examined a 10-year period of the release of green-belt land and found that about 41% of applications to build on the green belt had gone through. Does the Minister believe that the protections are sufficient and strong? The research suggests that that is not the case.

[Lee Rowley]

That is a very important point. I will come to it, but it is important to highlight that the amount of green belt in this country has increased in recent years. The overall amount has gone up substantially. That is due in large part to the introduction of a green belt in the north of England, but it is also the case—we should always stand back and consider this—that, in terms of pure hectarage, the amount of green belt has increased. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and ultimately we have a decision to make on green belt.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on the Opposition Front Bench made the important point that some parts of the green belt do not have the same aesthetic quality as others. Moreover—this has been in the NPPF for a substantial amount of time—there will be exceptions. In certain instances, buildings will need to be built for farms and for forestry, and consideration will have to be given to elements that most hon. Members and people out there will accept are reasonable. My point is that there has to be flexibility. The NPPF provides flexibility while making significant statements about the importance of the green belt, which is absolutely vital.

Coastal Communities

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I have the great pleasure of representing Wirral West, which forms the north-western part of the Wirral peninsula. The coastal towns and villages of Meols, Hoylake, West Kirby, Caldy and Thurstaston offer stunning views across the Dee estuary to Hilbre island and the Welsh hills in the distance, or out across Liverpool bay to Crosby, Formby and Southport. It is an area well known for the opportunities it provides for sport and leisure activities, both for local people and people from much farther afield.

Last Saturday, I visited the Royal National Lifeboat Institution station in Hoylake for the West Kirby and Hoylake RNLI meet and greet day. It was a fantastic event, and provided the opportunity for visitors to climb on board the lifeboat and the hovercraft, explore the lifeboat station and meet the staff and volunteers. I heard about the rescues they perform, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the immense courage, selflessness, skill and strength that they show in saving lives at sea. The RNLI is massively important to the local community, which supports it a great deal and is rightly proud of the work it does. Standing in the lifeboat station and looking out across the beach caused me to reflect on the wide range of water sports and activities that take place there, including walking dogs on the beach, riding horses, going out to Hilbre island to look at the seals, sailing, kayaking, paddleboarding and so forth.

The coast is a fantastic amenity for locals and visitors alike, and it is heavily reliant on one key ingredient: the sea. The quality of water matters, but it is at risk from sewage. I am concerned that it may now also be at risk from industrialisation, because this morning the Prime Minister announced that she will lift the moratorium on extracting shale gas. My constituents will be extremely concerned about that announcement.

The natural world is immensely important to the character of Wirral West. Back in 2013, under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, a conditional licence was granted for underground coal gasification in the Dee estuary. Like fracking, it is a risky technology for extracting fossil fuel. I have led a campaign against UCG in the Dee since 2013, and public opposition to the industrialisation of the Dee off West Kirby and Hoylake is extremely strong. The estuary is a site of special scientific interest and a place of international importance for bird life. It is important that we protect the quality of the ecosystem, so my constituents will be alarmed by the Prime Minister’s announcement this morning. I call on the Government to think again, restore the ban on fracking and put in place an outright ban on UCG too.

Sewage is also of great concern. One of my constituents wrote to me about her experience of kayaking. She said that she

“noticed a horrible scum on the water”,

which entered her kayak. She added that

“the evidence of raw sewage was obvious”.

Given that the Prime Minister was responsible for cutting millions of pounds of funding earmarked for tackling water pollution during her time as Environment Secretary, people have every right to be concerned that the Government will not take this issue seriously.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I do not have enough time, so I will carry on.

I ask the Minister to respond to that point. The Government recently published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, but although it appears to provide for an increase in the monitoring of overflows, the question remains whether the Environment Agency and Ofwat will then use that data to take tough action. I call on the Minister to set out how the Government intend to address sewage on our beach, UCG and fracking.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I ask Members not to take interventions, because we are up against time.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

There can be no levelling up in the UK until there is a restoration of funding for the public services on which we all rely. Conservative Governments since 2010 have decimated funding to local authorities. Central Government funding for Wirral Council dropped 85% between 2010 and 2020. The impact on our communities is devastating. As a result, in Wirral West the future of libraries in Hoylake, Irby, Pensby and Woodchurch is uncertain, as is the future of Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool. Far from levelling up, the loss of those facilities means the running down and impoverishment of the lives of everyone who relies on the services. How short-sighted of the Government to ignore the importance of libraries, pools and leisure centres.

There can be no levelling up until the Government provide building blocks for educational progression for adults in all communities. The Learning and Work Institute highlighted that more than 9 million adults have low literacy or numeracy skills, 13 million have low digital skills and more than 850,000 people say that they cannot speak English well or at all, yet the number of adults taking classes to improve their skills has fallen significantly in recent years. Those numbers are stark, yet the Government have failed to understand how important such provision is for levelling up opportunity across the country.

There can be no levelling up when around 4 million children are living in poverty and the cost of living crisis is threatening to push many more into poverty. Why does the Bill not address food insecurity? Between April 2021 and March 2022, 2.1 million emergency food parcels were given to people in crisis by food banks in the Trussell Trust network.

There can be no levelling up for all generations if the Government repeatedly fail to act on the climate crisis. They should ban fracking and underground coal gasification once and for all. Instead, they have commissioned the British Geological Survey to advise on the latest scientific evidence around shale gas extraction. We do not need a review to know that fracking is not the answer to our energy needs. Exploring the extraction of fossil fuels is an absurd and irresponsible response to the climate crisis. As Greenpeace UK said, the Government should stop

“pandering to fracking obsessives who aren’t up to speed with the realities of 21st century energy”.

The Better Planning Coalition, a group of 27 organisations across the housing, planning, environmental, transport and heritage sectors, said that

“the current proposals for new Environmental Outcome Reports give far too much leeway to Ministers to amend and replace vital aspects of environmental law.”

The coalition is concerned that those

“powers could be used to weaken essential safeguards for nature”.

It believes:

“Any new environmental assessment system should be set out in primary legislation, not in secondary…and clearly deliver for nature, climate, cultural heritage and landscape.”

The recent announcement by Leverhulme Estate that it has submitted planning applications to build 788 homes on the green belt in Wirral is a matter of real concern, as local residents and campaigners have made clear to me. The Government must introduce much stronger protection for the green belt. It is incredibly important for the health and wellbeing of people who live nearby and has an important part to play in our response to the climate and ecological emergency, supporting habitats for wildlife and allowing nature to flourish.

In conclusion, the Government are failing to provide our communities with the public services and facilities that they need; failing to tackle the crisis in adult literacy that is leaving many unable to realise their potential; failing to tackle poverty; and letting down both this and future generations on the environment. Put simply, the Government’s levelling-up Bill fails to deliver.

Merseyside: Funding of Local Authorities

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that Mr Speaker encourages everyone to observe social distancing and to wear masks.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding of local authorities on Merseyside.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin by thanking Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and I also thank Members from across Merseyside for attending today. I look forward to hearing their contributions.

According to analysis by the National Audit Office on selected main revenue income sources for local authorities, in 2010 Government funding for local authorities in England was just over £34 billion. Over the course of the next decade it decreased steadily, and by 2020 Government funding to local authorities in England was just over £8 billion. The cut of funding from £34 billion to £8 billion is staggering, and goes a long way to explain why we have seen the widespread erosion of public services. It represents a cut of around 76.5%. In other words, local authorities are being expected to continue to provide public services when they are receiving a fraction of the money they used to receive from central Government. No wonder our communities are feeling it.

If we look at Merseyside in the context of those National Audit Office figures, we see that the Government funding cuts that its local authorities have suffered are even higher than the England average. In my own local authority of Wirral, in 2010 the council received just over £266 million in Government funding, but by 2020 that figure was down to just over £40 million—a reduction of around 85%. Colleagues will be only too aware that it is a similar story elsewhere in Merseyside, and I am sure that we will be hearing details of the impact of those cuts.

I ask the Minister to listen closely to the figures that I am about to share. In Knowsley, the same National Audit Office figures show that in 2010 the local authority received more than £243 million in Government funding; that figure was down to just over £35.6 million in 2020—a reduction of around 85.3%. In Liverpool, in 2010 the local authority received more than £560 million from the Government, but by 2020 that figure was down to just over £75 million—a reduction of around 86.6%. In St Helens, in 2010 the local authority received more than £151 million, but in 2020 it received just over £16 million—a reduction of around 89.4%. In Sefton, in 2010 the local authority received more than £203 million, but 2020 saw it receive just over £16.7 million. That is a drop of around 91.8%.

Although local authorities have generally kept 50% of business rates revenues raised locally since 2013—and there is a pilot scheme to keep 100% of them in Wirral—that is nowhere near to making up the shortfall created by Conservative Government cuts. For example, Wirral Council received over £110 million less in annual income in 2020 than it did in 2010. Similarly, Knowsley received £116 million less, Liverpool over £209 million less, St Helens over £60 million less, and Sefton over £94 million less. Those staggering and brutal cuts by central Government are really punishing our communities. Political decisions taken by Conservative Governments since 2010 have had the effect of running down and forcing the closure of local public services.

Let us remind ourselves what it is that local authorities deliver. They provide and look after our libraries and leisure centres. They maintain our roads, streets, parks, and our open spaces where people relax, exercise, walk their dogs and where children play. They license taxis, the sale of alcohol and the movement of animals. They provide support to local businesses and chambers of commerce, stimulating the local economy. They manage planning processes, are responsible for public health, bin collection and waste disposal, free school meals, welfare support and advice and adult learning. They are responsible for trading standards and ensuring the safety and standards of the products that we buy. They are responsible for social services, safeguarding children and ensuring that vulnerable adults, including people with dementia, are cared for and protected, whether in their own home or a care home.

A decade of cuts to local government has resulted in £8 billion being lost from adult social care budgets, and many vulnerable people have been left without the support that they need. Some 400,000 older and disabled people are on council waiting lists for care, and there are more than 100,000 staff vacancies across the sector. That is a truly damning indictment of this Conservative Government. In short, local authorities, the services they deliver and the public realm they maintain are fundamental to our society and the way we live. If we want our councils to deliver good-quality universal public services, they need to be funded properly.

The Conservative party presents itself as the party of tradition, but it is anything but. The cuts it has imposed on local authorities since 2010 undermine our way of life and our traditions, and are pulling away the foundations of our communities. I am sure that we will hear from colleagues across Merseyside about what these cuts mean to their constituencies.

I want now to talk specifically about Wirral, where, as I outlined earlier, the local authority saw an 85% reduction in Government funding between 2010 and 2020, and received around £110 million less in overall income in 2020 than in 2010. The authority has been told that it must find savings of £20 million in its budget for 2022-23. Not doing so could lead to Government intervention. As a result, the council has been forced to make proposals to meet these financial constraints. The proposals are wide ranging and, if implemented, would have serious implications for communities in Wirral. The proposals include the permanent closure and demolition of Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool, and for all her hard work in leading the campaign to keep its doors open. She has made some excellent points in her speech. She will know that, as well as serving many other constituents, the Woodchurch is an invaluable community asset for some of the poorest communities in Birkenhead, including the Prenton and Noctorum estates. Like the Woodchurch estate in my hon. Friend’s constituency, people living in those communities have far worse health outcomes than their peers in more affluent areas of the Wirral. Does my hon. Friend agree that closing this cherished institution would deal a grievous blow to the invaluable work that has gone on in recent years to improve the health of people living in the most left-behind communities that we represent?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. He is absolutely right, and he is right about the health deficit in the area. Woodchurch has a higher percentage of people with long-term health conditions and disabilities than the borough as a whole. He has anticipated the next part of my speech with regard to the surrounding areas, which are so important. It really is important that we save this swimming pool.

The Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool are much loved by residents and groups, including Woodchurch swimming club, and as my hon. Friend said, the facilities serve thousands of people across Wirral, including communities in Woodchurch, Upton, and the Beechwood and Noctorum estates.

Leisure centres and swimming pools are vital to the health, wellbeing and relaxation of people in Wirral. The Woodchurch estate has a far higher proportion of people with long-term health issues and disabilities than the borough as a whole. When meeting user groups in the past, I have been struck by how many people use the pool to help with health problems such as joint pain and mental health issues. It cannot be right that this important facility is at risk of closure, but of course, sadly, Government cuts have led us to where we are.

Leisure centres and swimming pools are important, too, for the education of children, who are now required to learn to swim as part of the national curriculum—so, although leisure services are not a statutory requirement, swimming is. Before covid, 14 schools were using Woodchurch pool to teach children to swim—a vital skill for children growing up on a peninsula fringed by beaches. Now, those schools are having to bus children further afield, taking valuable time out of their school day and adding costs to already overstretched schools.

Wirral Council’s proposals also include the potential closure of numerous libraries, including those in Hoylake, Greasby, Pensby, Irby and Woodchurch in my constituency of Wirral West. These are libraries to which young families can take their children to introduce them to books and meet other young families, and which, as children grow older, they can independently visit, browse and learn in an informal environment. They are places where people who have ideas about entrepreneurial projects that they want to pursue can carry out research, drawing on the expertise of highly qualified librarians who know how to source information on all aspects of human endeavour. They are places where people who do not have internet at home can access it to explore any subject they want and, if necessary, search and apply for jobs. Libraries provide incredibly important community hubs, and they are, of course, very important for tackling social isolation. We know that loneliness was identified as a public health challenge in Wirral prior to the pandemic, and libraries have a vital role to play in addressing that issue.

Further proposals in Wirral include ceasing maintenance in open spaces, including up to 10 to 15 local parks, and halving maintenance in others; the closure of two golf courses; changes to residents’ parking permits, in some cases introducing charges for residents living in areas of deprivation; a reduction in highway maintenance; an end to night-time lighting inspections; the withdrawal of additional street cleansing services in some areas; the closure of public toilets; and a reduced school crossing patrol service. That is not even the full extent of what is being considered. The implications of such measures are extremely serious and Wirral Council, like so many others, is having to make up for prolonged, brutal central Government funding cuts.

Last month, I and other Wirral MPs wrote to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on him to come forward with emergency funding for Wirral to prevent further reductions in public services. We eagerly await a response to that letter and I repeat that ask to the Secretary of State, via the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has been working to secure a meeting between the Wirral MPs and the Secretary of State to discuss the very serious situation facing Wirral. Last week, the Secretary of State said:

“I am looking forward to a meeting. I recognise that there are real issues in the Wirral, which I hope we can work together to resolve.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 336.]

I appreciate that the Secretary of State’s office has made contact this week, and I understand that it will be in touch again shortly, to find a date after recess. I hope a meeting can be arranged as soon as possible, because time is of the essence.

Tomorrow, Members will have the opportunity to debate the local government finance settlement. This is the fourth one-year settlement in a row for councils, which, according to the Local Government Association,

“continues to hamper financial planning and council financial sustainability.”

Wirral Council feels that it is imperative to have a multi-year settlement from 2023-24, so I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that issue.

The response from Merseyside to the draft local finance settlement for 2022-23 was very clear. The leader of Knowsley Council said:

“We are continually lobbying the Government for fairer funding and ensuring that those areas that have greater needs are appropriately funded. Yet again, this has been ignored and we are once again having to look at how we can continue to provide the essential services our communities value and need.”

The leader of Sefton Council has said:

“I am afraid that the latest funding settlement shows little evidence of the Government investing strongly in public services…The Government has left us facing a position that remains austere and which will make our Borough’s economic recovery from COVID-19, when it does finally end, even more difficult.”

For Wirral, council funding from central Government does not come close to meeting the needs of the borough, as highlighted by the requirement to make such drastic savings.

The decimation of our local authorities and public services by this Government has to stop. As I have said, the Conservative party likes to present itself as the party of tradition, but when we look at the scale of the cuts it has delivered to local authorities since 2010, it is clear that it is anything but. It is leaving local authorities that want to serve local people struggling to provide even the bare essentials, and forcing the closure of vital community spaces such as libraries and leisure centres.

The Government have a choice. They can either continue down their current path of squeezing local authorities of every resource possible, or they can take another path and invest in people and communities, nurture and grow the potential of everybody, and create and maintain a physical and social environment in which individuals, communities and businesses can thrive, and in which people can have a sense of stability. It really is a simple choice, and it is a political choice.

It is time for the Government to change course. They must face the fact that services delivered by our local authorities, and the public realm that they provide and maintain, are fundamental to the functioning of a civilised society. If we are to thrive, the Government must invest in our communities, provide financial stability and fund the services upon which we all rely.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am somewhat flabbergasted by the Minister’s response, to be perfectly honest. He talks about our councils being on a firm footing for the year ahead and humongous progress on Merseyside; he cannot have been listening particularly closely to the debate, or the evidence brought forward by MPs about the huge amount of deprivation. I remind him that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) spoke passionately about the urgent need to address systemic poverty and inequality. Colleagues talked about food bank use, which has gone through the roof.

My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) spoke of Knowsley—her constituency is in two local authorities—being the second most deprived borough in the nation, so how can the Minister stand there and talk about things looking good for Merseyside? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said, Knowsley is not receiving any levelling-up money. It is astonishing that the Minister has taken this course. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke passionately about this crisis being made in Westminster, not Birkenhead. He explained clearly that this ideological attack has devastated the lives of thousands of his constituents. He described it as not levelling up, but punching down. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley explained, Knowsley received no money for levelling up at all, whereas central Bedfordshire received £90 per head, and it is in the top fifth of the country. He asked how the Government can justify skewing the levelling-up fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) spoke about an unrelenting assault on local authorities in the last 10 years, with the poorest populations being hit the hardest. She said that that was a conscious choice, which is why the phrase “levelling up” rings so hollow in Wirral. She spoke about the explosion in the number of food banks and social supermarkets, and about how devastated our social care budgets have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) spoke about the half a billion pounds-worth of cuts in 2010 to Liverpool—there was a cut of £12 million to Liverpool adult social care alone—and said clearly that we cannot go on like this.

This debate has been a plea from the MPs of Merseyside to the Government for funding for our communities. The impact is clear, raw, and hurting our people. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke about the importance of working to improve life chances, but she described a decade of austerity that has been destructive to our communities. She spoke of the huge regional inequalities in our country, and described how they are being entrenched, as less well-off areas can raise less through council tax and business rates.

I think I have covered everybody who spoke in this really important debate. I ask the Minister to go away and revisit the points made in it, especially that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) about this not being a Government of levelling up but a Government of closing down. This is real, and it is hurting our constituents. We ask the Government to think again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered funding of local authorities on Merseyside.

Levelling Up

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The islands forum is an idea developed following conversations with and advocacy from my hon. Friend. We recognise absolutely, as he has consistently pointed out, that island communities face particular challenges as a result of distance and dispersal, and we need to tackle them.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and other Wirral MPs. Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool and libraries in Greasby, Irby, Hoylake, Pensby and Woodchurch are all under threat of closure because of Wirral Council having to make up to £27 million of savings as a direct result of brutal cuts from Conservative Governments since 2010, so can the Secretary of State make sure that he provides emergency funding to save these vital services?

[Michael Gove]

I look forward to discussing that at a meeting with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley).

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will no doubt refer later to meetings I have had, including as recently as yesterday, with representatives from the sector. It is not necessarily for us to prescribe how they might change their business models, but different developers in the sector certainly take different approaches. Given that we signalled one intention and subsequently changed to another, I think we are striking the right balance in allowing a transition period.

In the other place, arguments were raised on both sides; there were those who wished to extend the transition period and those who wished to remove it. As I said, conversations are ongoing, including as recently as yesterday, and hon. Members including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) have been in favour of amending the transition period for the sector.

We acknowledge that the retirement sector has had less time to prepare than the rest of the development industry. However, we have given the matter careful consideration, and we believe the transition period in the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting retirement property consumers and providing a fair period of adjustment for developers. In my conversation with representatives yesterday, it was clear that prospective purchasers are already aware of the planned legislation—they seem to be a well-informed group—and I guess they will be mindful of that when deciding when to complete their purchase.

With regard to hon. Members’ concerns about the impact, I think it will be minimal for two reasons. First, the people who buy this type of property seem to take longer to make the purchase than would perhaps otherwise be the case; in fact, the sell-out rate for such properties is considerably slower than for normal residential properties. Buyers have a greater period over which to consider the purchase, and they frequently visit several times—first by themselves, and subsequently with members of their family—so this is a very considered purchase. Secondly, they seem to be well-informed about the changes to legislation. For those reasons, I feel they will be protected.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Subsection (4) states:

“The day appointed for the coming into force of this Act in relation to leases of retirement homes must be no earlier than 1 April 2023.”

However, it does not say when the Act will come into force. Could the Minister clarify that point?

[Eddie Hughes]

It is based on when we expect the Bill to come into force in its standard form, and then allowing a subsequent transition period. Assuming that the Bill comes into force quickly after Royal Assent—we have committed to that happening within six months—with the transition period following on from that, we anticipate the provisions coming into force in April 2023. On that point, I ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

I have every sympathy with that point because I know of examples in my constituency. In the past few years, as these egregious excesses were coming to light and before legislation could be drafted, the Government have tried to impress upon developers that they should not do this kind of thing, and there have been voluntary arrangements. House builders have made voluntary arrangements, sometimes midway through the completion of a phased development, such that some buyers of properties built in the early phases of a development have had to pay ground rent, or accelerating ground rent, service charges and some of the other things that have not been dealt with in this legislation, but in later phases that has not been the case; so there is a difference between properties—even those built to the same design in different phases of one development.

One could say that caveat emptor is the basis of land law in England. It is indeed: “Let the buyer beware.” However, I have a lot of sympathy with constituents of mine who were rushed into buying a property so that they could access Help to Buy, who were first-time buyers, who had not done a degree in English land law before they sought to become homeowners—which, let us face it, is most people—and who relied upon the advice they were given. I have many criticisms of the legal profession and the solicitors—even conveyancers—who advised some of my constituents, because it seems to me that there has been a potential failing, in some cases, there.

In any case, the Minister has come to this, wanting to do something about it—indeed he has drawn a line in the sand, as he said—but he must not forget those individuals that, in drawing the line, he has not helped, and who may in fact find their predicament more starkly highlighted, and may find it more difficult to move on and sell the property that they now have than they would have done without this legislation.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. Does she agree that there is a real human cost to this? I know of people living in my constituency who have properties elsewhere in the country, predominantly in the south, who decided to move back to Wirral because that is where they are from, only to discover that they are struggling to sell their properties. Quite often such moves are to look after an elderly family member or for similar reasons, so time is of the essence. Does she agree that we have to remember the human cost?

[Maria Eagle]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I have come across many instances myself. Perhaps a young couple, just starting out in life and on the housing ladder, wanting to be able to trade up in time when they start their family, suddenly find that they cannot because their home—their leasehold home—is of pariah status and they find it difficult to persuade somebody else to buy it. I worry that this legislation, welcome though it is—it is a good step: I emphasise that to the Minister—shines a starker light on the predicament that these people are in. It is therefore incumbent upon the Minister and the Government, who have been talking about this issue for a number of years—I am trying to be kind, Mr Hollobone—to come back swiftly with effective and challenging legislation that will do something for the people who are already stuck in this mess.

What we cannot do is say, “Oh, it’s all too difficult.” It is difficult, but as lawmakers, we are here to solve these problems. I will give every support to the Minister if he can come back, ignoring the lawyers who tell him that it is all too terribly difficult and nothing can possibly be done that would not tear up our entire English land law system of trading land. Something can and must be done. He will have my support if he comes back with much fuller legislation to deal with the existing problems of those who are already caught in this situation. Peppercorns are great. Perhaps we can have retrospective peppercornery.

Planning Decisions: Local Involvement

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

The Government’s planning proposals are a developers’ charter, removing the right of local people to challenge inappropriate developments in their own street or neighbourhood. The importance of protecting that right and ensuring that the planning system involves local residents was abundantly clear to me last week when I met residents in West Kirby campaigning against an 18-metre high 5G mast on a residential street—a campaign I fully support.

The Government intend that new-style local plans will divide land in England into three zones: growth, renewal and protected. While residents will be consulted on these zones during the development of a local plan, once the plan is completed, they will have very little say—and in the vast majority of cases, no say at all—on what gets built in growth and renewal areas.

Protected areas, which will include the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, local wildlife sites, areas with significant flood risk and important areas of green space, will continue to be subject to the current planning application process. However, even if an area is designated as protected, that does not necessarily mean there will not be any development; it just means there will be no automatic planning permission. Clearly, under this Government, such areas are not safe from development.

People in Wirral West value the green belt very highly, and many are understandably concerned that Leverhulme Estates, which owns much of the green belt in Wirral, is arguing for the release of the green belt for building, despite Wirral Council’s commitment to a brownfield-only policy. People have contacted me recently with their concerns about seeing surveyors out in the fields around Greasby and between Thingwall and Barnston. They are worried that these green fields are at risk.

People in Wirral West want to see a clear commitment from Government to protect the green belt, as do I. The Government’s proposals offer no such thing. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report “The future of the planning system in England” stated that:

“All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.”

That is a basic fundamental right, yet it is one that the Government want to take away from people. CPRE, the countryside charity, has expressed concern, saying:

“The Planning Bill looks set to prioritise developers’ needs over local communities”.

Wirral West residents have made their feelings clear. Many have written to me saying that the proposed changes, which would allow some planning proposals to proceed without approval by elected councillors, are bad news for local democracy, communities and our environment, and they are right. The Government should give local people and their elected representatives more say over the development of their neighbourhoods, not less. I therefore call on Members on the Government Benches to support this motion and send a clear message to Ministers that the right of communities to object to individual planning applications must be protected.

Fire and Rehire

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing the debate and I declare an interest as a member of Unite.

Pay and terms and conditions of work are fundamental to the lives that people can afford to lead and the pensions they will be entitled to. Constituents have written to me describing fire and rehire as abusive, appalling and immoral, and they are right. It is an attack on the rights of working people, who generate the wealth that shareholders enjoy and who provide the services we need. Dismissing workers in order to re-employ them on worse terms and conditions is quite simply wrong, and it is shameful that any employer would engage in those cynical tactics. The Government must ban fire and rehire.

As a member of Unite, I was proud to support yesterday’s day of action and I pay tribute to the work of the trade union movement. It is a matter of deep concern that the practice of fire and rehire seems to have become more common since the start of the pandemic. Deploying such a tactic at such a time is particularly shameful, and there have been high-profile disputes involving companies such as British Airways, British Gas, Go North West, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, and Brush Electrical Machines.

Earlier this year, the TUC estimated that since March 2020 nearly one worker in 10 has been told to reapply for their job on worse terms and conditions. The research showed that young people have been particularly badly affected, with nearly a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds who were surveyed saying that their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms during the pandemic. According to the TUC, 15% of the black and minority ethnic workers it surveyed have faced fire and rehire, compared with 8% of the white workers it surveyed.

Earlier this year, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy engaged ACAS to gather evidence of how fire and rehire is being used. The Government received evidence from ACAS on 17 February, yet still they have not published it or responded to it. That is simply not good enough, so will the Minister commit himself today to publishing the evidence and his Department’s response to it without further delay?

In January, a Labour motion tabled in the House of Commons called on the Government to set out for Parliament a timetable to introduce legislation to end fire and rehire tactics. The motion was carried by 263 votes to zero, with MPs on the Government Benches abstaining. That was profoundly disappointing and showed how little the Conservatives care about workers’ rights, terms and conditions.

Make no mistake—the Government’s lack of action is causing misery and financial difficulties for working people. The Secretary of State has described fire and rehire as unacceptable, and the Minister who is here today has condemned it many times in his own words, yet Government legislation to end those shameful tactics has not been forthcoming. Will the Minister do what the Prime Minister failed to do last week and guarantee that there will be a commitment to end fire and rehire in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech?