Draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 General Committees

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Laid before the House on 25 January, the order, if approved and made, will make provision in relation to the two new unitary councils in Northamptonshire, which will be fully up and running from 1 April 2021. The order will ensure a smooth transition from the predecessor councils. It relates to two issues: the lord lieutenancy and the Northamptonshire pension fund.

The order that we are considering this morning is intended to be the last statutory instrument implementing local government reorganisation in Northamptonshire. In February 2020, following Parliament’s approval, we legislated to abolish the existing county council and the seven district councils in the area and to establish the new unitary councils of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire.

Those local government changes were locally led, having been proposed by councils in Northamptonshire in August 2018, following an invitation from the then Secretary of State in March 2018. We were satisfied that they met our criteria for change—that the change would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area and have a good deal of local support, and that the new councils would have a credible geography.

I must pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so collaboratively and hard to implement the restructuring of local government in the area, all while establishing a new children’s trust and responding to the pandemic. Those have been significant changes, and the fact that we are now so close to a successful launch of the new councils is testament to the commitment and hard work of the local partners involved.

I also thank hon. Members for the area who have staunchly supported the drive for improved local government in Northamptonshire. Lastly, I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State’s commissioners in Northamptonshire, who have done so much to stabilise the position of the existing county council and provide a stable base for the transition to the new authorities.

The order that we are considering today makes the following changes in relation to the new councils. First, the order makes amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887 to insert, in the relevant schedules, references to the new local government areas of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire in relation to the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff respectively. That will ensure the continuation of the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff of Northamptonshire. There is no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire or to the functions or jurisdiction of the lord lieutenant or high sheriff of Northamptonshire. The important historic and traditional roles of lord lieutenant and high sheriff must be preserved for the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire after the reorganisation. That will be achieved through this order. Such ceremonial roles are rightly important to local leaders and communities. The lord lieutenant and high sheriff are royal appointments supporting Northamptonshire, the Crown and the judiciary.

Secondly, the order makes provision to ensure that the property, rights, assets and liabilities of the Northamptonshire pension fund transfer from Northamptonshire County Council to West Northamptonshire council, which will be the new administering authority of the pension fund for both the new councils, all predecessor councils and other employers who participate in the Northamptonshire fund. That will ensure the continuation of the administration of the pension fund and avoid crystallisation of any pension liability.

The order further provides that the assets and liabilities in the pension fund relating to the pensions of employees or former employees of the councils that are to be abolished transfer to the successor councils in proportions determined by West Northamptonshire council. That will ensure that there is clarity on who is taking over the responsibility for funding existing pensions accrued, and prevent exit payments from arising under the relevant regulations; these would normally be triggered where an employer leaves the scheme. The order provides that, in coming to a fair determination on those matters, West Northamptonshire Council must take advice from an actuary and consult North Northamptonshire Council.

In addition to this order, we have previously made regulations of general application to enable the effective implementation of all unitarisations. In general terms, the regulations ensure that anything that has been done by or to a predecessor council can be continued by or to the successor council. Specifically, they provide that all functions conferred on the predecessor councils are transferred to the successor council, as well as all property rights and liabilities, staffing, specified electoral and governance matters, honorary titles, plans, schemes, statements and strategies, and responsibility for certain functions relating to town and country planning and housing.

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

Is the Minister’s Department involved in approving the process that Northamptonshire is going through? At what point are the public involved in approving and agreeing that it is right to have two unitary authorities rather than a single Northamptonshire authority, and what is the cost benefit of doing that?

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When we received the locally-led proposals, there was a significant amount of local engagement and support from the councils that put them forward. We certainly deemed that to be the case in meeting the criteria for pursuing the proposals. The order that we are discussing this morning addresses two supplementary issues following the process, and the remaining incidental issues that were not addressed following the previous existing regulations of generic application. I can assure members of the Committee that we have worked closely with the existing councils and the shadow authorities for north and west Northamptonshire on this order, looking carefully at the numerous issues raised and agreeing that the order’s provisions meet local requirements.

The provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils, which Parliament has already approved. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I certainly join him in thanking everyone involved in the creation of the two new authorities, including the trade unions. He asked a couple of important questions: first, on the devolution White Paper.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the power and benefits, as he described them, of locally-led decision making driving forward the delivery of investment and opportunity in communities. We remain absolutely committed to devolution, which is why we have just delivered the West Yorkshire devolution deal. We look forward to the first mayoral election in May. We will have nearly 50% of the north covered with elected mayors following that election, so it is an exciting moment for us. We are absolutely excited by the opportunity that that brings to people in Yorkshire.

We are completely committed to the devolution agenda. The White Paper was one of the pieces of work that we had to postpone during the heat of the pandemic, as we asked councils and our Departments to focus their resources on dealing with the impacts of what was before us. Unfortunately, I have not a date today for when we will bring forward the White Paper, but we are completely committed to doing that this year. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to deliver it and see it as a central and important part of our work. We are continuing the work we have already done on locally-led proposals that can be delivered with significant support across communities. The agenda remains at the forefront of so much we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our commitment to fully fund councils and the impact of the pandemic. Of course, that absolutely remains. If he looks back at what we have tried to do and the spirit in which we have tried to do it over the last year, first, the work of councils has been absolutely remarkable in responding to the pandemic—they have been front and centre of our response. That is why we have provided them with over £8 billion so far. We have a commitment to £11 billion for councils. If we look at the returns that councils have submitted to my Department, the amount that they are spending and the projected amount that they are likely to spend to the end of this financial year, that comes to a total of £6.9 billion, so we have provided them well in excess of the amount that they have spent. We also have in place the sales, fees and charges and other income loss schemes, which have already started to pay out—we have paid out £500 million already. Of course, we keep that under close review.

My last point on local government finance is that we tried as best we could in the context of a one-year spending review, which that was necessary because of the circumstances, to give councils the certainty with their finances using the tools we had to do so. Alongside the provisional settlement that we published in December, we also published three other important things. First, we published the allocations for each council for the covid support that they will receive from April to the end of June. That was a breakdown of £1.5 billion by local authority. It was a conscious policy decision to do that early on to give councils certainty in the context of the spending review.

Secondly, we published the local council tax support scheme with the details broken down by local authority, and the details of the sales, fees and charges scheme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that commitment absolutely remains and that we want to support and empower councils and communities to deliver public services efficiently.

[Matt Western]

Specifically on that point, is the Minister aware of the situation in Northamptonshire given it had an issue, I recall a few years ago, with a £53 million brand-new headquarters—as it described it—for the council? Has that impacted on its ability to supply services through the pandemic or, indeed, as we were discussing pension funds, has it had any impact on the future provision of pension funds for staff?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are hugely grateful to parish and town councils, which have been on the frontline in responding to this pandemic. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to them earlier this year to encourage principal councils to work with them to discuss funding. Councils in Devon will receive a further £31 million in un-ringfenced covid funding next year, which will help to ensure that their facilities are maintained and ready for the summer. Finally, I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency has received an offer of £6.5 million from our future high streets fund, which I understand will go towards refurbishment of the historic market quarter.

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

  Considering local government reform, the five boroughs and districts of Warwickshire have spent over £100,000 on a report by Deloitte, and I understand that Warwickshire County Council has spent over £50,000 with PricewaterhouseCoopers. Deloitte found that it would be favourable for one sort of authority, while PricewaterhouseCoopers decided that county councils should remain as is. Is that a good use of public money?

[Luke Hall]

Those individual decisions are decisions for local authorities. I can certainly inform the hon. Gentleman that Warwick has received over £3.7 million this year in covid funding, and is receiving a 4.8% real-terms rise in core spending power this current financial year, but the individual decision to which he has referred is for the council to make.

Towns Fund

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Government’s interest and their recognition of the importance of Royal Leamington Spa to be a recipient of potentially £10 million. As an important sub-regional shopping centre, it is a vital part of the region’s economy and quality of life, so let me praise the council officers at Warwick District Council for the quality of their original submission and the work they have done since in refining the proposals against a reduced contribution proposed by the Government. That said, £10 million is a sound amount for them to work with, and I hope it can do much to address the air quality in the town, highlighted by the World Health Organisation as an issue, while revitalising the commercial centre more widely.

However, let me cut to the chase. Over the past decade the Government have cut £15 billion from local authorities across the UK, yet handed back just £3.6 billion to some towns which they invited to bid for moneys. Members will know that back in October I questioned the Prime Minister—did I have the guts, he asked me—about how it could be that the Secretary of State could approve tens of millions of pounds for his Minister and his constituency town of Darwen, while that Minister could return the favour and approve tens of millions of pounds for the Secretary of State’s constituency town of Newark—beyond belief. But how were the 101 towns selected in the first instance? Surely, if the Government were honest in their claim to level up, they would have allocated the moneys to the most deprived communities across England, but they have not. In the past year, we have heard many cases of the Government using algorithms, or more often malgorithms, but this is back-of-a-fag-packetithm. While Housing, Communities and Local Government officials may have recommended that the Government did one thing—namely, allocate funds to the most deserving communities—instead the Secretary of State and Ministers allocated moneys to towns in the lowest priority category.

It is also worth noting that the Government chose to allocate by region, not need, so the north and the midlands were disadvantaged by their political ploys. How else could Bournemouth benefit but, shockingly, South Shields be left off? Both are seaside towns, but I think I know which is in greater need of the funding. It is something Harry Redknapp would have appreciated more than most. I will not even go into Cheadle. While Big Ben no longer bongs, this Government bung, and they are doing it on an industrial scale. A simple analysis of the towns that have received moneys underlines the political tactics laid bare. Certainly the timing of the announcement, in the last few weeks before the last general election, might give us a clue. It was carefully targeted at marginal seats. Interestingly, the impartial cross-party Public Accounts Committee concluded in its investigation that the selection process was not impartial. It took evidence from Christopher Hanretty, a professor of politics at Royal Holloway, who said that

“the process by which towns were invited to bid for money from the Towns Fund was driven by party-political electoral advantage”,

riding roughshod over any pretence to be levelling up this country. Any section 151 officer in a council would be sacked if they acted like this.

Any impartial observer will see this for what it is, and certainly the public do. It is grubby government of the worst order.

Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This Government, like their predecessor and their predecessor, are pursuing a policy that promotes an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. The opening remarks of the Secretary of State suggest he is clueless about how hard this is hurting hard-pressed households across the country. Most shameful of all is the Government’s disingenuous claim to level up our country and our society. This is laid bare in their approach to local government finance, where they have brazenly encouraged this widening of wealth between our local authorities—between shire and city, and north and south. Instead, they have presided over an acceleration of inequality across this country, while families have to stump up more money for less locally.

Fortunately, the public are starting to see this for the charade it is. After years of inflation-busting council tax increases in effect forced on authorities by this Conservative Government, the public see next to nothing in return: holes in the roads, holes in their arguments. Across England, we have seen the average band D council tax increase dramatically, way ahead of inflation. In 2015-16, this was £1,500, and it is expected now to rise to almost £2,000 in this next financial year. This represents an eye-watering 29% increase in cash terms on its level in 2015-16.

Residents in Warwick and Leamington are facing a further increase of £94 on average this coming financial year, despite next to no increase in wages and inflation at between 0.5% to 0.7%. Warwickshire County Council has lost half a billion in funding since 2013. Among all the services it has cut or closed, let me just mention the virtual closure of youth services, which has clearly contributed to knife crime rocketing. We now have the prospect of yet another rise in the police levy from the police and crime commissioner. It is another 6%—12 times the inflation rate—on local taxes, while cutting 87 staff from the investigations and domestic abuse teams. That is 87 dedicated and experienced police staff being made redundant.

This is all against a backdrop of the Government handing out cash to their mates, with £21 billion for a failed test and trace scheme that sees call operators staying at home and making a couple of calls a day. The Government are starving local public health of money, although local public health would do it better for less. They are shovelling money to other mates setting up middlemen businesses to import personal protective equipment that never arrives—merely hundreds of millions of pounds in their case.

Let me give the Government one desperate plea from local government: charge a fair fee for planning. It is ridiculous that a site employing 2,000 people here for the new megalab in Leamington is, in effect, being subsidised by Warwick District Council. I also make a plea to provide some long-term certainty. How many times have we heard the Government say they will do whatever it takes, only to take whatever they like from what they promised local government? On 16 March, the Secretary of State told 300 council leaders they would do whatever necessary to support them. We are seeing an ever-widening gap in our society, and another inflation-busting council tax is just one too many for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The current system is not successful. It leads to long-winded wrangling. It places the cards in the hands of big developers, rather than local councils, communities and, in particular, small developers, who find it too costly and complex to navigate. The new infrastructure levy will be simpler and more certain and, as my hon. Friend says, it will do two important things. First, it will raise a larger amount of money, capturing more of the uplift in land values, so that more money can be put at the disposal of local communities. Secondly, it will give greater freedom to local councils to decide how they choose to spend that, so that development can benefit communities in flexible ways.

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

What recent discussions he has had with the Office for National Statistics on housing need and planning reforms.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

We regularly engage with the ONS on many issues, including the role of household projections within the local housing need standard method. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to learn that, alongside the planning reform White Paper, Ministers and officials have hosted and attended a very large number of consultation events. We are always interested in working with stakeholders and experts on proposals, and we welcome the expertise that the ONS brings.

[Matt Western]

Like communities up and down the country, the people of Warwick and Leamington are extremely concerned about overdevelopment and, in villages such as Bishop’s Tachbrook, urban sprawl. When we look at the numbers from the district plan, we see 932 homes supposed to be built per year and the Government’s figure from their “malgorithm” is 910 homes per year, whereas the ONS estimates 623 properties a year and, likewise, Lichfields 627. There seems to be a huge disparity between the figures from the ONS and Lichfields versus those of the Government. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss and explain the reasons for that because, on the face of it, the figures do not stack up?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am always happy, of course, to meet the hon. Gentleman, although he may be misinformed in so far as I think the local housing need for his own constituency and local authority is 627 a year, not the 910 that was projected in the Lichfields projections in the middle of last year. However, I am always very happy to meet him, and I am sure at that time he will be very keen also to put on record his great pleasure in receiving £10 million in future high streets funding for Leamington, because his Boxing day tweet, in which he seemed to rubbish this spending, did smack a little of “Bah, humbug!” It seems that Ebenezer Scrooge does not live simply in the mind of Charles Dickens; he is alive and well, and living somewhere in Warwick.

Housing: North Somerset

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my parliamentary neighbour, on securing this debate and on making the case so eloquently and forcefully not just on behalf of his own constituents but on behalf of my constituents—and, as he rightly pointed out, given the various comments that we have both been getting in the Lobby during the votes just now, on behalf of a great deal more constituencies right the way across the country.

I want to pick up on a couple of the points that my right hon. Friend made—very briefly, because I want to leave time for the Housing Minister to respond. He is absolutely right to say that North Somerset as a whole has absorbed a huge amount of housing over the past 50 years. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as NIMBYs. We have taken an enormous numbers of houses. We are happy to take more if they are in the right places, because, as he rightly points out, there are very many local residents who want their children to be able to afford to live locally—who do not want them to be forced to move away and come back only when they have made their fortunes, if they can. That is clearly not the right way to do it, and it is clearly not the right way to have sustainable and balanced communities either, so therefore we want to be able to have enough houses for this to be affordable. Both my right hon. Friend and I, and many local residents, agree with the notion that, as a country, we have to build more houses, but the question is where we build them and why the existing system is forcing people to build in the wrong places and in the wrong ways.

My right hon. Friend is also right to point out that if we stick with the current approach, we stand absolutely no chance of delivering on the number of houses that are required. That is not because there are not enough places with planning permission or because there are not enough permitted areas where planning permission has already been agreed, but simply because the existing housebuilders have a business model which requires them to dribble out houses consistently over many years at no more than a pre-set rate—about 800 every year in our areas—in order to avoid deflating the cost of housing by building too fast and ruining their investments. So, if we do not change something soon, we will never get to the numbers that the Minister is rightly setting for the entire country.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider that Weston-super-Mare, perhaps some of the areas in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and certainly central Bristol should be willing to take more homes in the middle of towns, rather than in the areas, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out in his nicely coloured-in map, are not available to be built on outside towns. Central Weston needs the investment; central Weston would be delighted to have more homes built in the right places. That points to one of the advantages of the Government’s latest set of proposals for permitted development rights with carefully constructed local council-approved planning guidelines.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this Adjournment debate. Does the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) agree that one of the issues about density of dwelling in planning, and one of the issues with the White Paper proposals, is that we will have less control over what sort of densities would get built out by the developers?

[John Penrose]

Actually, I respectfully disagree with that last point, because local authorities will be able to set development codes, which will be able to dictate the level of density, and they can also dictate the look and feel of the areas. As a result, places like central Weston and central Bristol, where development is, on average two storeys tall, could easily—and in the case of central Weston, would gladly—absorb more homes if we were able to go up to four storeys tall. We are not proposing to emulate the Shard, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out, because that would be completely inappropriate, but we want to go up to four storeys, or maybe five at the outside. We want to build elegant townhouses and mews houses; the sort of things that we are proud to look at in parts of Weston already, and certainly in parts of central Bristol and parts of Bath. Such beautiful bits of architecture—more dense, but beautifully put together—could absorb all the homes if we were only able to do it. But the current system—the current method of allocating those homes—does not allow us to do it, because local authorities do not get credit if they start to allocate building in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he wants to raise a point about North Somerset.

[Matt Western]

The Minister is very generous. I want to concentrate on that point about affordability. In his vision, does he see that there is a role for council house or council flat building? Surely, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) illustrated about his area—I am sure it is true across the country—truly affordable accommodation must be delivered through council house building as well.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it easier for councils to build council houses. He will know that, through the affordable homes programme that the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in September, over the next five years we will inject £12.2 billion into house building. We will build 180,000 new homes in our country, about 50% of which will be affordable and for social rent. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, and I am pleased to have been able to make the point to him that we are building those affordable homes where they are necessary.

That is why we are looking at housing need now, considering carefully how each element of the formula that I described works together so that we can ensure that we achieve the right distribution of homes in the most appropriate places and address any perceived imbalances. We have consulted, as I said, on each element of the indicative formula, and we are reflecting carefully on the feedback we have received.

Town and Country Planning

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to oppose these plans. What have we learned since the war? When we think back to the new towns developed in Hertfordshire, Essex and elsewhere, and the great planning that went into them, we realised that we really did some fantastic stuff. These statutory instruments would remove the ability of people in Warwick and Leamington and across the country to have their say in how their neighbourhood is being developed—we have seen a degree of that over the past 10 years—and instead hand over power to the big housing developers while communities and councils are emasculated. Shelter, the Local Government Association, Crisis, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are among the bodies to have expressed serious misgivings about these changes.

SIs 632 and 755 have been spoken about around the Chamber, so I will not dwell on them. It is actually SI 756 that most concerns me. Developers will be able to demolish housing and offices and rebuild them as denser and taller blocks of flats—as tall as six storeys and containing up to 60 or 70 flats—without making a full planning application. We already know that the previous permitted development regulations, which allow for the conversion of empty office blocks into new homes, have led to modern-day slums. This was forcefully exposed by BBC “Panorama” earlier this year, and the Government’s own report has concluded that

“permitted development conversions do seem to create worse-quality residential environments than planning permission conversions in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, well-being and quality of life of future occupiers.”

There is also a lack of control over where the homes are placed. Naturally, many previous PDR developments have ended up on industrial estates and other unsuitable places. This leaves residents without essentials such as access to public transport, local services, shops and amenities. Whatever happened to our communities and town planning? It beggars belief, therefore, that the Government are seeking to expand these rights at the cost of the most vulnerable members of our society and our communities, who will end up living in these appalling homes. It is the developers who are gaining significantly. I think about the multimillionaires and billionaires who have made so much money out of development in south Warwickshire, south of Warwick and Leamington, but they have provided no amenities or facilities there.

One of the most serious problems running through all the statutory instruments is that they allow developers to avoid obligations to build affordable housing. Last year, just 6,300 new social homes were built in England. When sales and demolitions are accounted for, we lost more than 17,000 social homes over the course of last year. We have had only 21 new social rented council homes built in Warwick district since 2010—and we wonder why we have a housing crisis. Section 106 obligations are now the main way to get new social rented homes built. According to the most recent year’s stats, 10 times as many social rented homes were built through section 106 as were built with money from Government grants. These SIs mean that developers are not obliged to contribute to affordable housing through section 106.

Instead, the Government must make building social rented council homes their No. 1 priority. Look at places such as Goldsmith Street in Norwich: built under a Labour council, it shows us what social rented housing can be—beautiful, well designed and environmentally friendly; reminiscent of the great developments in the post-war period. We know that building social rented homes is popular: 268,000 people have signed George Clarke’s petition to build 100,000 council homes a year for the next 30 years.

These statutory instruments will strip away power from local communities in favour of big housing developers. They will lead to poor-quality unaffordable homes. I am afraid that these changes are a foretaste of the full reforms proposed in the planning White Paper. They are a developers’ charter, giving them sweeping power to build poor-quality homes and, importantly, avoid commitments to build truly affordable social rented homes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

I urge Ministers to accept that the provisions in new clause 10 are needed, because the measures set out in the Bill could otherwise affect the ability of all the Administrations within the UK to achieve their environmental ambitions and to keep improving environmental standards. We hear so much from the Government about how much they care about these issues. Here is an opportunity for them to demonstrate that, by accepting the new clause.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As someone who opposed Brexit, I have bought into the fact we have left the EU. I accept exactly where we are. I guess that my frustration, like so many people around this place, is that we find ourselves at this crossroads, at this dangerous juncture, at such a late hour. I think all of us want a Brexit deal that protects our economy and protects jobs, regularises our standards and provides environmental protections, but foremost also secures our businesses, which are so dependent on relations with our nearest neighbours, within Europe.

I want to speak to new clause 11, but I will also address in passing amendment 86. We were told that we had an oven-ready deal. According to the Foreign Secretary, it was going to be a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland. But of course, the Prime Minister was not talking turkey, certainly not in anticipation of Christmas, as we have just heard. This was a deal that the Prime Minister himself cooked up, yet now it is stated that this could break up our country—our Union. This is an historic admission of failure. New clause 11, put forward by my honourable colleagues, seeks to ensure that we get this Brexit deal done. It is a broad new clause that demands that the Government should review and report to Parliament on the workings of the Act, addressing the functioning of the UK internal market Act and the effectiveness of the market access principles that have been promised, as well as agreeing common frameworks with the devolved Administrations.

My concerns lie with the fact that the Bill, to my mind, frustrates a deal. The trade economists we on the International Trade Committee have heard from made it pretty clear that failure to get a deal will cause our manufacturing industry exports to fall by around 20%. For the automotive industry specifically, which I have a clear passion for, should we not have a deal by 31 December, we will, of course, fall to WTO rules, which will see 10% tariffs on all passenger cars, 22% tariffs on vans and trucks—another important part of our export mix—and 3.5% tariffs on components, which of course are intrinsic and critical to our manufacturing. The Government are talking about maybe getting, through our deal with Japan, a special arrangement that will enable any Japanese components that go into our products to actually count as being of UK origin. I would be amazed if the European Union would actually accept that.

Jaguar Land Rover has warned that it could be forced to close plants if the right Brexit deal is not agreed, jeopardising £80 billion of planned investment. Ford has said that no deal would be disastrous and would make it reconsider its investments in the UK. Nissan has said that its operations in Sunderland would struggle to survive the extra tariffs imposed by a no deal. Toyota has said it would be forced to halt car production in the UK, temporarily closing its plant in Derbyshire. BMW has said that it could shift production of the Mini from Cowley to the Netherlands if there is a no-deal Brexit. These are not idle threats; this is the reality faced by many multinational businesses.

I am afraid that the Prime Minister is prepared to play Russian roulette—hardly a surprise, given the nature of his sponsors—with our businesses, our jobs and our prosperity in this country. That has to be our concern. Although there might be talk about the possibility of a US trade deal, we have heard in recent days that the passing of this Bill would jeopardise any UK-US trade deal. It is very unlikely to pass through Congress, such is the strength and purpose of the Irish caucus in Washington.

Let me turn to international law and Britain’s reputation. This is not simply about Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation—one that stands up for the rule of law? Does the Prime Minister really want to throw that all away by disregarding international treaties, in particular one that he personally negotiated and signed up to? That will undermine our standing in the world.

I am reminded of the incredibly powerful speech yesterday by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who said:

“whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”.—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 667-668.]

We have heard it from Lord Howard, from Sir John Major, from David Cameron—from so many former Prime Ministers.

It is clear that our Prime Minister is being reckless. Can Members imagine what the co-founder of the modern Conservative party, Robert Peel, would be thinking now—a person who championed law and order? In our Prime Minister, we have a man who is legendary for wrecking restaurants in Oxford. Does he not see that by his behaviour and actions, he is damaging Britain’s reputation—doing a modern-day Ratner? Members may recall Gerald Ratner, the entrepreneur who set up an incredible business empire and then destroyed his entire business with a few ill-chosen words. We risk not just tarnishing our reputation but seriously damaging it. We must be concerned about that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to new clause 11(4) and the need to preserve the Union. It is clear that while we are in danger of destabilising the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we also risk undermining the devolution settlement. With the Bill, the Government are seeking to usurp the process of agreeing common frameworks on key devolved matters such as agriculture and food standards. The Welsh Government have made it clear that this is seen as a power grab, a centralisation of powers and an emasculation of the devolved Government. They have described it as

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales”.

The voice of the Welsh Government is echoed by the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who say that it is “impossible to recommend” that the Scottish Parliament give its consent to the Bill. It has been condemned by the First Minister and Scottish Labour.

Finally, let me turn to the situation with state aid. For me, this is a red herring. I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has served this House for many decades and championed the cause of leaving the European Union. To my mind, however, what I have witnessed over decades is how intelligently other nations have used state aid to their benefit. They have long provided aid, support, guarantees—call it what you will, even state ownership. I do not believe that this has been to their disadvantage and I do not believe it would be to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland either—I think it would actually be to its great advantage. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), but as I see it, both Germany and France have stronger steel industries, and they have made the system of state aid work for them. For all those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be opposing the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just a gentle reminder that because we are in Committee, it is usually customary to call me “Chair” rather than “Deputy Speaker”. I know that it is difficult to follow, because we said this at the beginning and people are in and out of the Chamber, but that is just a reminder.

Rented Homes: End of Evictions Ban

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is rarely silenced for long. I hear what he says and he has heard what I have said. We will bring forward the renters’ reform Bill, which will be the biggest rent change and tenancy change in a generation, when it is appropriate. In the meantime, we will continue to support tenants and landlords through the measures that I have already outlined.

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

We know that 9% of private renters have made a claim for universal credit during the crisis and, of course, we are expecting a massive spike in future universal credit claims in the months to come. Given that the local housing allowance barely covers local rents, particularly in Warwick and Leamington, where house prices and rents are so expensive, surely the Government should adhere to and honour their promise to renters back in March to protect them for the months to come.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have already said, his constituents will be able to take advantage of a discretionary housing payment application to their local authority if they have need. We have given half a billion pounds to local authorities to apply council tax relief to their residents where it is appropriate. Of course, we will also continue to work hard. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement and a statement just a few weeks ago, and I am sure that he will make further financial announcements in due course that will be designed to stimulate the economy as we exit this crisis and to support all our people, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to get back to work.

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to start, as others have, by praising our local authorities rather than burying them, as perhaps the Government would wish. In the last few months, we have seen an extraordinary effort, contrasting very favourably with the work of our national Government. We have seen real professionalism, we have seen them deliver, whether it be business grants or addressing business rates, and we have seen them delivering on the shielding programme as well. But of course, as we have heard, no other Department has faced the same scale of cuts that local authorities have. After 10 years, £15 billion has been cut and now with coronavirus, we are seeing an £11 billion hit to those authorities, but the Government are providing them with only £3.2 billion. Contrast that with what the Government said on 16 March, which was “Whatever it takes, we will stand by you”. That does not seem to be the case, and that is really hurting the authorities.

I commend my local authority Warwick District Council for what it has done. It has been agile, it has been active and it has delivered, and I praise it publicly for what it has done. But the challenges are great in social care, as we have heard; youth services; women’s refuges; and the enforcement that is now required of those authorities in making sure that we meet the challenge of coronavirus.

I want to talk about housing, because there is no greater priority. We know that there is a huge amount of homelessness in the UK. We need to build social homes on a massive scale. We need to build 300,000 houses a year, and of those 150,000 need to be social rented properties. Last year, only 6,300 were built, and in my constituency only 21 council homes—social rent properties—have been built.



The Help to Buy scheme is costing Government £4 billion. The Government are also spending £23 billion a year on housing benefit and paying £8 billion to private landlords. That is why we need to get hold of the issue of social rent properties and what council councils can actually deliver in that field.

The Government say they want to build, but they should start with rebuilding trust in our Government, and they can take a leaf out of the book of local government on how to deliver that. For 10 years, this Government and their predecessors have taken a wrecking ball to local authorities, but they have shown in the last few months what they can do and they are trusted by our public. We have seen that with covid-19, but we need to address issues such as knife crime and the issues among our social services.

In closing, the Government told us that they could not address the issue of rough sleepers until 2027, but they have managed to do so in a matter of months. It is now time that they deliver elsewhere.