Birmingham City Council

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Birmingham City Council.

Birmingham is a great city with a wonderful, diverse, creative and enterprising population. It has real economic, cultural and educational strengths. But Birmingham City Council has not served the citizens of that great city as it should have. For years now, the city has suffered as the council has failed to grip underperformance. Poor leadership, weak governance, woeful mismanagement of employee relations and ineffective service delivery have harmed the city. Senior leaders—both elected members and officers—have come and gone, but the one constant has been a failure to deliver for residents who deserve better. I believe strongly in local government, local decision making and devolution of power to local communities. But I also believe that when failures in local government occur, we must act. As we devolve more power to local government overall, we must demand sharper accountability. The need for action in Birmingham is pressing.

On 5 September the council’s chief financial officer issued a section 114 notice, which set out the full gravity of its financial situation. As a result, and as I will set out to the House, I am satisfied that Birmingham City Council is failing to comply with its best value duty. In line with the Local Government Act 1999, therefore, I can announce that I am today writing to the council to set out my proposal to intervene and to appoint commissioners, and that I intend to launch a local inquiry in due course. I do not take those decisions lightly, but it is imperative to protect the interests of the residents and taxpayers of Birmingham, and to provide ongoing assurance to the whole local government sector. Copies of the letter have been provided to the Vote Office, and will be deposited in the House of Commons Library and published on gov.uk.

It may be helpful to the House if I outline how we in Government arrived at this position. In 2014, the independent Kerslake report, commissioned after the “Trojan horse” investigation into a number of Birmingham schools, found that successive administrations had failed the city. It warned that the council lacked a clear vision, had failed to tackle deep-rooted problems such as the low level of skills, and was not doing enough to provide consistently good quality services. The report’s author, the late Lord Kerslake, also highlighted a culture of sweeping problems under the carpet or blaming them on others, rather than tackling them head on.

The problems Lord Kerslake identified have, unfortunately, endured. In April 2023, the Minister for Local Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) asked the then council leader, Councillor Ian Ward, to commission an independent governance review. He was prompted to act after governance and service delivery concerns were raised by three independent sources: the local government and social care ombudsman, the housing ombudsman, and the Department for Education’s commissioner for special educational needs and disability at the council. The scope of the review was then extended to include two further serious issues which subsequently came to light: the flawed implementation of a new financial ledger system, Oracle; and the council’s handling of its significant equal pay liabilities. The council’s response to both issues has caused concern, highlighting significant shortcomings in its governance arrangements, and in its ability to identify and resolve areas of weakness. Last month, my hon. Friend wrote again to the leader, seeking assurances about whether the council was compliant with its best value duty in relation to decisions on equal pay and Oracle. To date, there has been no response.

We understand that a number of factors led the chief financial officer of the council to issue the section 114 notice last Tuesday, as laid out in the report. These included concerns raised by the external auditors, Grant Thornton, around the provisions for equal pay in prior year accounts. The independent auditor’s assessment was that the revised estimated equal pay liability is likely to be more than £760 million, and there is a risk it could be much higher. That means, in turn, that the 2020-21 and 2021-22 accounts were materially mis-stated, and that the council did not have sufficient reserves to mitigate the cost of the liability due for those years. In addition to the acute financial position stemming from equal pay, the council is dealing with other difficulties. They include the costs of resolving the botched Oracle implementation, estimated at £100 million.

The residents and businesses of Birmingham deserve better. The intervention package I am proposing today is formed of two complementary parts. First, I propose to issue statutory directions to the council and appoint commissioners to exercise certain functions of the council as required. Secondly, I intend to launch a local inquiry to consider the more fundamental questions around how Birmingham got to this position and options for how it can become a sustainable council moving forward that secures best value for its residents.

I am proposing the transfer, to the commissioners, of the exercise of all functions associated with the council’s governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making, and all functions relating to senior appointments. As part of the proposed direction, the council would, under the oversight of the commissioners, prepare and agree an improvement plan within six months, which would set out the council’s own plans to make the necessary improvements to the whole council to return it to a sustainable financial footing. The commissioners will provide advice and challenge to the council across its operations and will have powers to make decisions directly should they deem that necessary. My hope is that the commissioners would not need to use all those powers. None the less, they must, in my view, have the necessary mandate to deliver the reforms that are required. The commissioners will give me, and I will in turn give the House, a progress report at regular intervals.

I judge that the scale and nature of the failings at the council, its precarious financial situation and its failure to provide sufficient assurance to Government that it is taking adequate action to address these issues are all highly concerning. I acknowledge that the council is working with the Local Government Association on its own proposals on improvement, and I have met the leader of the council to hear his plans, but in accordance with the legislation, I have now informed the council that I am minded to implement the package I set out today to protect the interests and services of the people of Birmingham, and have given the council five working days to make representations on the proposals I have set out today.

I am specifically minded to appoint Max Caller, an experienced local government professional and commissioner, to lead the intervention. I will also welcome representations from Members of this House and others who may wish to contribute their views. I thank Birmingham’s MPs for their engagement over the course of the last week, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who has been particularly closely engaged with the issue throughout.

It is important that we all get to the bottom of how we found ourselves in this position. That is why, as well as sending in commissioners, I am today making it clear that we need a local inquiry that can look at all the deep questions, including by assessing the council’s ongoing management of issues identified in the Kerslake review in 2014 and the subsequent non-statutory intervention. We will consider options for how Birmingham can improve in the future. I should make it clear that everything I am saying today is not a reflection on the many hard-working staff at Birmingham City Council who continue to deliver essential frontline services for Birmingham residents.

Birmingham is not the only council where we have seen significant local failure. There have been problems in recent times at Liverpool, Sandwell, Slough, Nottingham, Thurrock, Woking and Croydon. The Government have not hesitated to act where poor decision making and governance have been identified. The newly established Office for Local Government, our performance body for England, will have an important role to play in future where local authorities are identified as being at risk of potential failure. It will bring council leaders together with others in local government to explore problems in more detail.

Tougher scrutiny is vital when more decision making and budgets are passing from central Government into the hands of local politicians and officials. When local leaders fail, it is citizens who are let down—whose rubbish is not collected, whose libraries cannot open and whose vulnerable people are not adequately protected. Birmingham’s record is of ineffective, inefficient and unaccountable local government, despite our best efforts and significant support. That needs to change. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to protect the residents of that great city. I commend this statement to the House.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement today. It has been a while since we faced each other: 804 days, to be exact. A lot has changed since then. We are on our third Prime Minister, our fourth Chancellor and, of course, our sixth different Minister for Housing. They have crashed the economy, families face the worst cost of living for a generation, and mortgage rates have increased nearly fivefold since our last meeting. But one thing has not changed: local government has been pushed to the brink. Birmingham is just the biggest, latest example.

This is a deeply worrying time for people in the city. The issues facing the council are difficult and complex, and administrations of all three major political parties have grappled with them in the years since they emerged. Since May, the new leadership in Birmingham have been working urgently on this issue and have been clear that they will take responsibility for tackling the problems facing their city, but they can only make that progress if the Secretary of State treats them as partners, and not as a political football.

I welcome the comments the Secretary of State has laid out today in regard to the action and support he will give Birmingham, but can he assure us that the commissioners will work with the city’s elected representatives and leadership to tackle these problems together? Is his Department considering a similar approach to other struggling councils? Will his officials be taking a deep dive into the areas he mentioned in his statement?

In Birmingham’s case, the Secretary of State mentioned the large equal pay settlement as the straw that broke the camel’s back, but he also told us that governance and service delivery concerns were raised by three independent sources: the local government and social ombudsman, the housing ombudsman and the Department for Education’s commissioner for special educational needs and disability. That came after Lord Kerslake’s review, which found that successive administrations had failed the city. Yet he provided no support until the section 114 notice. Why does it take that for the Government to take action on this scale?

Like the rest of the country, Birmingham is facing the shock of spiralling inflation and battling a cost of living crisis, but in the face of all of this, the Government stripped away its reserves. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that amounts to £1 billion taken from the pockets of local communities over the last decade? He surely cannot deny that Birmingham has experienced some of the most severe cuts of the last 13 years, and he must recall that it was this Prime Minister who boasted of changing the funding formulas to take money away from deprived urban areas. Now, faced with an eye-watering equal pay claim, with which the leadership are rightly dealing, Birmingham has been pushed over the edge.

As the Secretary of State admitted, this is by no means a single case. Local authorities across the country are struggling, and, after 13 years, he cannot seriously say that it is all their own fault. Perhaps he can confirm that only one council issued a section 114 notice before his party took office in 2010, and that since then eight councils have issued notices, with warnings that another 26 are at risk of bankruptcy over the next two years. Can he tell us why so many local authorities of all political stripes have already issued section 114 notices on his watch? This is not a one-off, so what work is his Department doing to support local authorities that are warning of financial distress now?

The truth is this crisis in local government has been caused by the Conservatives’ wrecking ball. With every swing, another local council is pushed to the brink and another local community falls over the edge. That is the difference between us. A Labour Government would oversee sustainable, long-term funding for councils, and we would work with local authorities and push power, wealth and opportunity out of Westminster. The Secretary of State finished his statement by talking about upholding the good name of local government. Surely we can all agree that central Government have real questions to answer. Will the Secretary of State finally grasp the nettle and take responsibility, or is his message to local councils today that this is just the start of more misery to come?

[Michael Gove]

It is a great pleasure to be reunited with the right hon. Lady; those 800 days apart seemed much longer. We have certain things in common—both of us have been trade union organisers in the past—but she has been much more successful in internal party elections than I have ever been, so I do have a lot to learn from her. Nevertheless, I must politely remind her that while in my statement I was, I hope, careful and scrupulous in making clear that responsibility goes back quite some time in Birmingham, and responsibility does need to be shared between elected members and officials, I did not mention anything specifically or explicitly party political, because I believe it is vital that we work together across parties and across political traditions to deal with this issue.

Given that the right hon. Lady did mention the party politics of this, I think it important for us to recognise that the intervention in Birmingham, and our interventions in Sandwell and Liverpool, have all been interventions in Labour-led local authorities in which comprehensive mismanagement extended back over years. It is simply not good enough to say that Birmingham has not received the support that it needed. Birmingham has a core spending power of £1,202.4 million. That is a 10.6% increase in the last year, and a 31.8% increase since 2015-16.

Labour local authorities have been supported with funding, and also supported with the help of West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a striking factor in the west midlands: why is it that Labour Sandwell and Birmingham are failing, while the Conservative leadership of Andy Street has seen the delivery of record investment and record house building? If people want to draw political lessons from what we have seen in Birmingham, the message is very clear: if you want effective and efficient local government, trust in Conservative leadership, particularly at a time when we need to recognise that a fundamental problem afflicting Birmingham’s finances is an equal-pay problem exacerbated by the actions of trade unions—trade unions which, in many cases, are funding Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party. It is vital that Labour politicians use their influence to ensure that we can work together to deal with the problems that that great city faces.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the statement—it is right that the Secretary of State is taking this decisive action in relation to commissioners so that we can get to the bottom of what has actually happened in Birmingham City Council—but can he give me some reassurance that neighbouring local authorities such as Dudley and Sandwell, and council tax payers, will not be picking up the cost of the failure of the Labour administration in Birmingham? Can he also reassure me that projects relating to transport infrastructure and employment creation and skills will not be put in jeopardy by the failures of that Labour administration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, there are real issues for Sandwell as a local authority, which is why we had to intervene there to deal with years of mismanagement, but it is also the case that council tax payers elsewhere in the west midlands must not be on the hook for failures that occurred in Birmingham. We will have some tough decisions to make. Central Government are prepared to extend additional financial support to the city, but our commissioners will, I am sure, be confronting the political leadership of Birmingham City Council with some necessarily difficult decisions, and I hope that we can take them in a constructive spirit together.

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

The Secretary of State gave a list of councils where section 114 notices had been served and commissioners had been brought in. Perhaps he can confirm that Thurrock, Woking and Northamptonshire are not Labour-controlled councils. He seemed to miss that bit out when he was justifying his attack on some councils on the basis of their being Labour-controlled.

No doubt there have been problems in all these councils, but does the Secretary of State accept there is some overarching responsibility for a Government who delivered austerity to councils—bigger cuts than in any other part of the public sector—and that while by and large local government has managed extremely well, some councils have gone over the edge? Does he also accept that other councils may now be facing the brink? He has an expert unit in his Department advising him. Can he tell us how many councils he thinks are now on the brink of section 114 notices, and what action he will take to help them in advance?

[Michael Gove]

I am always grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee. I have already pointed out that in my statement I deliberately did not choose to make political points, but given that my wonderful shadow, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), did choose to insert some party political points, I thought it only appropriate for me to point out that Liverpool, Sandwell, Slough, Nottingham and Croydon had all been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by Labour leadership. It is important to give that context.

It is also important to say that while I will of course continue to fight for local government finance—and, at the last spending review, I secured the biggest increase for over a decade—it is nevertheless incumbent on elected leaders and officers to continue to deliver services efficiently. That is why our new Office for Local Government will hold councils effectively to account while also highlighting the best practice that is so widespread in local government, and which sees many councils continue to deliver high-quality services without getting into the sort of trouble that Birmingham has got into.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) cannot be here today because of a family matter, but he—like me, and like so many others in Birmingham and the west midlands—wants to make sure that this review in Birmingham is different from some of the reviews that we have seen elsewhere so that we can finally figure out how Labour has repeatedly failed in Birmingham, in order to learn the lessons of the past but, most importantly, to protect local services for the future.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must deepen this inquiry. It is fair to say that it was a Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration that ran Birmingham until 2012, but over the last 11 years there has been a succession of Labour leaders. I do not for a moment move away from the fact that there were ways in which the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration before 2012 was not performing as it should have been, but this deterioration—particularly when it comes to the issue of equal pay—has occurred on Labour’s watch.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Can I ask two questions of the Secretary of State? First, he mentioned one person he is minded to appoint as commissioner. When will he tell us who else he has in mind? Secondly, will the Secretary of State’s commissioners’ powers to make decisions directly extend to making decisions to raise council tax and to sell off assets belonging to the people of Birmingham?

[Michael Gove]

I am glad that Max Caller has agreed to be lead commissioner, but in the next few days I want to hear directly from Birmingham’s MPs and other representatives about who they believe can act as effective commissioners alongside Max Caller. I am completely open to thoughts and suggestions from hon. Members and others about how we can build the most effective and coherent team. It has sadly been the case in the past with local authorities that have failed, such as Croydon and Slough, that we have needed both to increase council tax in certain circumstances and to dispose of assets, but it is too soon to say what the precise mix of interventions that may be required is. I want to do everything to protect Birmingham’s council tax payers and residents by making sure that services can continue.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

I moved back to Birmingham after graduating; I chose to do so in 2007. I am a former president of the chamber of commerce and a former local enterprise partnership director—we have one of the most successful LEPs in the area—and to say that I am disappointed by what has gone on in Birmingham is an understatement, not least because it has had over a decade to get to grips with this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree, though, that there are two stories in Birmingham? There is the story of the political failure that we are seeing at the council, but there is also the story of the youngest-ever city in Europe thriving, with the largest amount of start-ups outside London, a massive life sciences sector and an advanced manufacturing sector. This success is happening under the leadership of Andy Street. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that my council, Solihull Council, which has projects with Birmingham, will remain unaffected by what is going on there?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has had a distinguished career in business and public service in the west midlands. It is right to say, as I sought to do at the beginning of my statement, that Birmingham as a city has so many strengths. We can be proud of its people and of its achievements economically, educationally and in so many other ways. The Commonwealth games showed Birmingham very much at its best. This is a specific problem that relates to the council. It requires focused action, and the support of the West Midlands Combined Authority, of Andy Street and of others will be vital in resolving this situation. There should be no adverse impact on residents in Solihull, and I will continue to work with my hon. Friend and other representatives of Solihull to ensure that that local authority continues to get the support it deserves.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Obviously, this is not a situation that anyone would want to be in. I want to understand exactly how the commissioners will work. While everyone is making party political points, it is actually the people of Birmingham who vote for the council and who have put those people in place. Will the citizens of the city get any intervention in this process? How are their feelings going to be heard, or are they just going to have things done to them by people who, let’s face it, do not live in Birmingham or know what the city is like? I do not know this fella. I believe he worked in Hackney. He does not live in Birmingham. He does not know anything about what the city is like. And the Secretary of State’s praise for Andy Street makes me think that he has never tried to get on the tram in Digbeth. We cannot just have a steamrollering in the city. There has to be some level of accountability also for the commissioners, and I wonder what system that will work on. I have to ask the Secretary of State: what is it about the last 10 years that means he can reel off a list of councils including Thurrock, Northamptonshire and Woking? I believe that his own council is not in cracking shape. What is it about the last 10 years that has meant they have all shown cracks in the roof?

[Michael Gove]

There are several important points there. I have never taken a tram in Digbeth, but I do know that, thanks to Andy Street, there is significant additional investment in Digbeth and that the BBC is moving there. It is thanks to Andy Street that we are seeing business and culture flourishing in the west midlands. Max Caller is a uniquely experienced figure in local government. In Slough, he managed to deal with many of the defects that had occurred under—I am afraid—a Labour administration. Having talked to the hon. Lady and other Birmingham MPs, I am very open to them as Birmingham’s elected representatives co-operating with me to help identify who should join Max as a commissioner. The explicit reason that I am minded to act in this way, and that I have announced only one name, is to get the maximum possible consensus and buy-in for a strong team that can take the steps required. What has happened over the last 10 years? I am afraid we have to look at individual councils and the decision-making within them, and to recognise that there are well-run councils. I shall not name them here, but there are even one or two well-run Labour councils. But it is important to recognise that this is about the quality of local leadership, which, as we devolve more power down, has to rise to the challenge.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

Like many colleagues in the west midlands, I seek reassurance that my constituents in Wolverhampton will not be impacted by a knock-on effect through the West Midlands Combined Authority. Does my right hon. Friend agree that hard-working people pay their council tax to get the essentials done, and that Birmingham, which knew it was in financial trouble, spending £1.2 million on trade union facility time last year seems an expense too far for hard-working people?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing such a fantastic job for Wolverhampton. Even though I may not always agree with everything that Wolverhampton Council has done, it has had some distinguished Labour figures leading it in the past. More broadly, there has been a consistent failure to deal effectively with employee relations and trade union issues in Birmingham. We talk about equal pay, and of course equal pay matters, but what we have seen is a failure to effectively confront this liability early enough and a failure to deal fairly and robustly with trade unions.

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

Birmingham is the eighth local authority to declare a section 114 notice since the Tories took power, causing huge concerns to my residents in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. Across the UK, councils are struggling with rising prices and limited budgets, and most are being forced to make even deeper cuts next year. Can the Secretary of State accept that local leaders need certainty about their budgets and reassure the House today that every local council will be properly funded by central Government?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely; we do ensure that every council is appropriately funded. I know—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Lady served with distinction on Birmingham City Council, so I would exempt her from any criticism, but I do not exempt from criticism others who have served and continue to serve on Birmingham City Council. If we look at each of these specific local authorities, we see failures that require to be acknowledged—failures that even the current Labour leader has been good enough to acknowledge. That is why we need to work together and why this intervention is required.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The sad case of Birmingham City Council will worry my constituents. As the Secretary of State knows, Warrington Borough Council—a Labour-run council—has borrowings of almost £2 billion, which is 10 times its core spending power. My constituents and I worry about the governance of Warrington Borough Council and about the return on investments that have been made by the council. I am also deeply worried that councillors in Warrington do not understand the decisions they have taken and the exposure they have put my constituents under. Each constituent is now in debt to the tune of £10,000 because of those decisions. Can my right hon. Friend set out the steps his Department is taking to prevent another collapse at a Labour-run council, given that that could occur in Warrington next?

[Michael Gove]

I know that the Minister for Local Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), has been paying close attention to what has been happening in Warrington, and we will report back to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and to the House on that. He is absolutely right to raise those concerns as there is more work that we require to do to satisfy ourselves about the fundamental financial health of Warrington.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has rightly mentioned the Bob Kerslake report of 2014, a key finding of which was that the role of officers in Birmingham had subdued the role of elected members. John Cotton, the current council leader, has rightly highlighted the accounting and equal pay issues—he wants to make a difference. To resolve the issue with the officers, will the Secretary of State look to bring back the district auditor function, so we can be much clearer about the finances of local authorities?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very constructive approach he has always taken to dealing with local government and education issues. Yes, the Kerslake report identified a number of weaknesses, including at officer level and, yes, it is also the case that the relatively new leader of Birmingham City Council, John Cotton, has been honest about the need for improvement.

It is also the case, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, that we need to improve the audit function within local government overall. The Redmond report and others have pointed to the need to do so, and I believe that the new Office for Local Government will provide an even more rigorous early-warning system, if things are likely to go wrong, as well as—this is equally important—celebrating those local authorities, of all political colours, that are doing a good job so we can learn from them.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The problems we face in Thurrock have emerged over the past 10 years, during a decade in which Thurrock has been dominated by three-party politics and a succession of minority administrations in which the UK Independence party held the balance of power. Being brutally frank, it was impossible to make financial cuts or to increase council tax, which has led us to our current situation.

In the light of the best value inspection, which found that the position had been exacerbated by annual elections and constant electioneering, will my right hon. Friend consider whether those lessons need to be read across local government? I remind him that, going back as far as 2019, previous Ministers, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the National Audit Office all warned Thurrock of the recklessness of its policy, yet councillors and officers failed to act. Do we need to consider statutory powers for a sanction in those circumstances?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a series of very helpful points, and she is right. Obviously, it is not my role or responsibility at this time to interfere in the calendar of elections that local government has enjoyed, acquired or inherited over the years, but I agree that, wherever possible, we should move away from annual elections. Indeed, the work to change the electoral geography and timings in Liverpool has been helpful. She is also right that the particular political dynamic in Thurrock created difficulties, and how we hold people to account in future needs to be reviewed.

My hon. Friend has been a consistent voice in challenging underperformance at Thurrock Council, and a brave voice in attempting to face down populism in her constituency, in order to do the very best for her constituents.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The situation facing Birmingham City Council is very serious, and those responsible should be held to account. None the less, we know Birmingham is not unique. Many councils across the country, as we have heard, are entering section 114 territory. According to reports, the Secretary of State’s local council in Surrey Heath could go bankrupt within two years. What assessment has he made of the financial situation facing councils and of the impact of the £1 billion stripped from Birmingham City Council’s budget by the Government?

[Michael Gove]

The overall health of local government matters hugely, and the financial health of local government matters hugely. That is why we are bringing forward the new Office for Local Government. I think the hon. Lady and I will have to agree to disagree on the root cause of the problem in Birmingham. As I said earlier, Birmingham’s core spending power has increased significantly, and other local authorities that have not seen their core spending power increase by the same amount are managing their finances effectively, but I hope we can work together to ensure that, wherever responsibility has lain in the past—we may disagree on that—we can serve the people of Edgbaston and all of Birmingham better in future.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

Labour-run Blackpool Council currently has a budget deficit of more than £23 million, which is one of the largest in the country compared with its revenue budget. Despite this, the council continues to fritter away taxpayers’ money, not least in spending £174,000 on six trees and in giving councillors a pay rise. To ensure its financial position does not deteriorate further, will the Secretary of State join me in urging the council to get the basics right, to end its pursuit of ideologically driven projects that are not supported by residents and to end all wasteful spending immediately?

[Michael Gove]

I love Blackpool and I love trees, but £174,000 for six trees is £29,000 a tree. Some trees they must have in Blackpool.

More seriously, the local authority faces challenges, but Blackpool’s two Members have been very successful in securing additional central Government expenditure to help to regenerate the centre of Blackpool and to secure new investment. Whatever views one might take of Blackpool Council—and it does seem as if it is paying slightly more for its trees than it could have paid in most garden centres—central Government have nevertheless shown how partnership and levelling up can secure real change.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the offer to work together, and that offer has been welcomed by Councillor John Cotton this afternoon.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether we can find a way to have a conversation about fair funding? He is a student of Tory leadership campaigns and, like us, he probably winced when he heard the Prime Minister say to one campaign meeting:

“we inherited a bunch of formulas from the Labour Party that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas…that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that.”

The truth is that richer councils have taken cuts of about £44 per head since 2010, whereas Birmingham City Council has taken cuts of 14 times that amount. There is a conversation to be had about funding, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State is considering one way to fix it, by creating a levelling-up zone and investment zones in east Birmingham, on land between the two High Speed 2 stations.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that those plans will still go ahead? Has he considered creating a development corporation in east Birmingham, for which I have argued for a long time, to lever in significantly larger amounts of money? Can we have a conversation about how we support the combined authority, too? As he will know, Andy Street’s budget faces a gap of £29 million next year, rising to £50 million in a couple of years’ time, and currently there is a £1.1 billion black hole between the investment programme and the funds available to pay for it.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful question. Although we might disagree politically and have different reflections on what may have been said in the past, he is absolutely right that we need to explore a development corporation and that east Birmingham, in particular, needs additional investment. He is also right that we need to work with the West Midlands Combined Authority. The recent trailblazer devolution deal gave significant additional support to the West Midlands Combined Authority and the Mayor, but we keep what is required under constant review.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right that Birmingham’s economic health powers the whole west midlands and is vital to our overall success as a nation, which is why I want to make sure that we get back to strong leadership and effective governance in Birmingham.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

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

I welcome the appointment of Max Caller, who has a strong track record of making these difficult decisions and helping councils to turn around, but the Secretary of State will know that task and finish was a big part of what happened in Birmingham. Does he have oversight of which other councils are still doing that? Nearly 30 years ago, at Islington Council, we were looking at those issues and tackling them.

The big issue here—the elephant in the room—is local audit. Some 12% of audit opinions for the 2021-22 financial year have come in, even with the extended deadline. The permanent secretary and the National Audit Office have indicated that we need to focus on the current year and to forget previous years, but these canaries in the mine, these warning signs, were never heard because of the dire state of local audit. This has all been on his Government’s watch. Can he give us any reassurance that he really has a plan to get local audit back on track?

[Michael Gove]

First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about Max Caller. He is a first-class professional, and I know he will do an excellent job with the other commissioners. Secondly, I think it is fair to say—I do not want to make a party political point—that the local audit situation requires both investment and leadership. One of the first things I sought to do when I arrived in the Department was to ensure that the Office for Local Government can play a system leadership role in helping to reform and improve that process. I completely agree with the hon. Lady on that.

The hon. Lady’s central point was about task and finish, which some Members may think sounds like a good thing. A task and finish group is a team that sets out to resolve a problem and dissolves itself when the problem is finished. It seems to be the model of what we should have in administration: not a permanent bureaucracy, but a taskforce. However, task and finish in Birmingham, and indeed in some other local authorities, has basically meant the binmen—the scaffies, as we would say in Scotland—knocking off early as soon as they had claimed that they had finished their task and yet claiming for their full working day. Again, it is not an effective way to run any public service.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Councils across the country are struggling under severe financial constraint and there is no doubt that local government is badly underfunded. However, I want to commend my Bath & North East Somerset Council for having shown great prudence in order to rebuild its finances, and I hope the Secretary of State will join me in praising it. The reform of the audit system has been mentioned, but may I ask him: what timeline can we expect for a reform of that system? When does he think the backlog of unpublished opinions will be cleared?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I had the great privilege of visiting Bath recently to look at a housing development. Just as some Labour councils are good, I believe there are one or two Liberal Democrat councils that are good, although I certainly shall not be naming them at this Dispatch Box now. More broadly, we are taking steps to deal with the audit situation she mentions and my hon. Friend the local government Minister can brief her in detail, should she wish, about that situation.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned core spending power, so it is important to reflect on the first 10 years of this Conservative Government, when 60p in every pound was stripped away from local authorities. The Government then forced councils to rely on council tax as central Government funding was reduced. Places such as Birmingham and Luton can raise much less from council tax, because of their smaller housing stock, than wealthier areas, which have bigger houses in higher council tax bands. Places such as Birmingham and Luton therefore lose out every year. Was his policy just a result of incompetence or is it part of the Prime Minister’s stated aim to take funding from deprived urban areas and give it to wealthier towns?

[Michael Gove]

I do not know how it is possible to sustain an argument that we are taking funding from deprived areas when one looks at the levelling-up partnerships we have in Hull, Sandwell, Blackpool, Blyth, Worksop—[Interruption.] A tiny amount? Tell that also to the people in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, who have benefited from strong Conservative leadership and investment. Tell it to the people in Workington, Walsall and Willenhall. All of them have benefited directly from the levelling-up funding that this Government have secured. Were there tough times in the first couple of years after 2010? Yes. Why were there tough times? It was because Labour had left us in a situation where there was no money left. I am afraid that the lesson of Labour in central Government is that it always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it entered and with the public finances devastated.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to the questions, particularly those from the local Members.

Planning Update

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Written Statements

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

I am today setting out updated policy on planning for onshore wind development in England.

In December last year the Government consulted on a number of proposed changes to the national planning policy framework, including changes relating to onshore wind development in England. That consultation concluded on 2 March this year and we received over 26,000 responses which my Department is carefully considering.

Through this consultation the Government have heard the strength of feeling and range of views on onshore wind. My right hon. Friend the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary and I continue to believe that decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas. This will ensure decisions are underpinned by democratic accountability. We agree following our consultation, however, that we need to strike the right balance to ensure that local authorities can respond more flexibly to suitable opportunities for onshore wind energy, contributing to electricity bill savings and increasing our energy security as well as respecting the views of their local communities.

Having considered the responses carefully, I am confirming our intention to proceed with changes to national planning policy for onshore wind which take forward the proposals which were consulted upon, with minor changes to reflect responses and provide clarity on how policy should be applied in practice.

This includes amending the planning tests for proposed onshore wind developments to make clear that suitable locations can be identified in a number of ways, rather than solely through an area’s development plan. Development plans can take a number of years to be produced and adopted and we want to be clear that other, more agile and targeted routes are appropriate: for example, through local development orders, neighbourhood development orders and community right to build orders. We hope that this will mean sites are identified more quickly, speeding up the process of allocating sites for onshore wind projects, and ultimately, as a consequence, more clean and renewable energy is generated sooner.

We are also adjusting the policy so that local authorities can more flexibly address the planning impact of onshore wind projects as identified by local communities, on which we intend to publish further guidance. We have heard accounts that current policy has been applied in such a way that a very limited number of objections, and even at times objections of single individuals, have been taken as showing a lack of community backing. This is not the policy intent, and as a result of today's policy change it will now be important that local decision makers are able to take a more balanced approach, considering the views of communities as a whole. The Government are also open to novel ways to demonstrate community consent, building on best practice and using new digital engagement techniques.

We are also clear that local areas that support hosting onshore wind should directly benefit. That is why we have consulted on proposals for improved rewards and benefits to be offered to communities backing onshore wind farms, including potential energy bill discounts. The Government will respond to this consultation in the autumn.

I can also confirm that we are taking forward changes in relation to the repowering and life extensions of existing renewable energy sites to make clearer the circumstances in which these may be approved.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all those who participated in the consultation. Our formal response to the other wider proposals in the consultation will also be published later this autumn.

An updated national planning policy framework will be published today and policy changes, relevant to planning decisions, take effect immediately upon publication; some transitional arrangements for plan making are set out at annex 1. The amendments are to chapter 14 of the national planning policy framework. Relevant extracts can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-09-05/HCWS1005/

[HCWS1005]

Long-term Plan for Housing and Nutrient Neutrality

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Written Statements

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

Over the summer I have taken further decisive action to boost housing supply: first, through setting out this Government’s long-term plan for housing; and secondly, by unblocking housing stalled by nutrient neutrality rules, alongside my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary.

My plan builds on this Government’s strong housing record which has increased delivery, improved quality, and focused on safety. On delivery, despite a challenging global economic backdrop our approach has ensured we are on track to meet our manifesto target of delivering 1 million new homes in this Parliament. Since 2010, over 2.2 million new homes have been delivered and millions of people have moved into home ownership. Since 2010, we have delivered over 659,500 new affordable homes, including over 458,700 affordable homes for rent, of which over 166,300 homes for social rent. We have focused not just on supply but on quality, and there has been a significant reduction in the number of non-decent homes across all tenures.

Long-term plan for housing

On 24 July, I set out more detail on this Government’s ongoing commitment to housing supply and regeneration, including 10 principles which underpin my Department’s long-term plan for housing, as well as transformational plans to deliver a new era of regeneration, inner-city densification and the delivery of beautiful, safe, decent homes. This detail builds on our existing commitments to deliver one million new homes by the end of this Parliament and continue our progress towards achieving 300,000 new homes per year, whilst maintaining the protections that matter most to local people.

The 10 principles which form our long-term plan are: the regeneration and renaissance of the hearts of 20 of our towns and cities; supercharging Europe’s science capital; building beautiful, and making architecture great again; building great public services into the heart of every community; communities taking back control of their futures; greener homes, greener landscapes and green belt protection; a new deal for tenants and landlords; ensuring that every home is safe, decent and warm; liberating leaseholders; and extending ownership to a new generation.

The first and most important component of that plan is our programme of urban regeneration to densify our inner cities, unlocking benefits for the environment, productivity, and a renaissance in city culture which is already supporting regeneration in towns and cities across the country. As the next stage of this work, I announced ambitious programmes in a further three English cities, to deliver transformational change in Cambridge, inner London, and central Leeds.

Cambridge’s potential has been circumscribed by a lack of new space for laboratories and the new housing necessary to attract and retain talent. In Cambridge, we will therefore be taking action to unblock development and create a new urban quarter for the city. These ambitious plans will combine beautiful design with sustainability, delivering space for cutting-edge laboratories, new homes, and business. We are establishing a Cambridge Delivery Group, chaired by Peter Freeman and backed by £5 million of funding, to take immediate next steps. We recognise that water scarcity is a top priority to unblock growth in Cambridge and we will work with relevant partners, including the local authorities and industry, to identify and accelerate plans to address water constraints. To this end, we are investing £3 million into a pilot to support measures to improve the water efficiency of existing homes and commercial property across Cambridge, to help offset demands created by new developments.

The homes we need in London are not being delivered—just 21,000 new homes were started in the capital last year, a third of the 66,000 homes the Mayor identified in his own assessment of housing need in London. Housing need in the capital is likely to increase further and a failure to redevelop inner-city London will add to pressure on the suburbs. That is why we are planning to intervene, using all the arms of government to assemble land, provide infrastructure, set design principles, masterplan over many square miles and bring in ambitious private sector partners. Our ambition in London is a Docklands 2.0—taking in the regeneration of Thamesmead, Beckton and Silvertown to deliver up to 65,000 new homes. We will look at how we can ensure better transport connections from east to west to help crowd in local and private investment. We are also allowing the affordable homes programme to be directed towards regeneration, with up to £1 billion available in London alone.

We have also committed to working with local partners in Leeds to regenerate the city centre, identify the remaining barriers to delivery of housing across key sites, and support the development of the West Yorkshire mass transit system. We will provide additional revenue funding to accelerate this work.

I also announced the allocation of £800 million from the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund to unlock 56,000 new homes on brownfield sites and enable us to take an infrastructure-first approach to developing our cities. £550 million of this funding will be overseen by Homes England, alongside landmark investments of £150 million for Greater Manchester and £100 million for the west midlands.

As well as our targeted, place-based interventions, I announced a number of reforms to the planning system that will speed up new developments, put power in the hands of local communities to build their own homes, and unlock planning decisions. Our additional funding package, totalling £37.5 million, includes the £24 million planning skills delivery fund, designed to clear existing backlogs and improve the skills of planners. A new “super squad” of specialists will support delivery of sites, including a trailblazer in Cambridge of £500,000. Alongside this, we are increasing the amount developers pay in planning fees for the first time since 2018 to support planning departments in local authorities across the country.

The Government’s commitment to development and regeneration in and around existing town and city centres is also guiding our consideration of the more than 26,000 responses we received to the consultation on updating the national planning policy Framework. The Government want to make it easier to progress such developments, and to that end I am clear that: development should proceed on sites that are adopted in a local plan with full input from the local community, unless there are strong reasons why it cannot; local councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed; and better use should be made of small pockets of brownfield land by being more permissive, so more homes can be built more quickly, where and how it makes sense, giving more confidence and certainty to SME builders.

Later in the year, subject to completion of its passage through Parliament, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will put in place our reforms to the planning system, and the Government will publish updates to the national planning policy Framework.

New development must keep local people in mind. We have established the Office for Place in Stoke-on-Trent, led by Nicholas Boys-Smith, to support councils to ensure that new places are created in accordance with the best design principles embodied in a simple design code supported by local people.

To speed up the delivery of new development, we launched a consultation on proposals to make plans simpler, faster to prepare and more accessible. We are also consulting on proposed changes to permitted development rights to turn more existing commercial, agricultural, and other businesses into new homes, as well as changes to farm development, and will consult again in the autumn on how permitted development rights can better be used to support existing homeowners to extend their homes.

On safety, I announced that 18 metres is the threshold the Government will introduce for second staircases to be included in new residential buildings. This decision will provide clarity to the sector and bring us in to line with other major countries and territories. It aligns with the expert view of several relevant professional bodies, including the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the National Fire Chiefs Council. To minimise the impact of the change on the supply of new homes, we are working with industry and regulators to design transitional arrangements that will secure the viability of projects that are under way and avoid delays where there are other appropriate mitigations.

The measures announced as part of our long-term vision for housing comprise a balanced strategy that will empower local areas to deliver the right homes in the right places, promoting beauty in design and fostering real pride in place. This is central to the Government’s continued commitment to levelling up.

Nutrient neutrality

On 29 August, the Environment Secretary and I announced a plan to unblock housing stalled by nutrient neutrality rules, while at the same time protecting and restoring our precious natural environment.

At present, legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality are blocking the delivery of new homes, including cases where planning permission has already been granted. This has affected home building of all types, from the redevelopment of empty spaces above high street shops, to affordable housing schemes, to new care homes and families building their own home. The block on building is hampering local economies and threatening to put SME local builders out of business. Nutrients entering our rivers are a real problem, but the contribution made by new homes is very small compared with that from other sources such as industry, agriculture and our existing housing stock.

The Government is therefore responding to calls from councils across the political divide who want to be able to get on with meeting housing need in their local areas, by tabling amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill at Report stage in the House of Lords. These amendments make targeted and specific changes to the habitats regulations, alongside a wider package of environmental measures which will ensure housing development can proceed at the same time as water quality is improved as a result of these reforms. Agricultural and industrial development will continue to be dealt with by separate permitting and regulatory processes. The Government have taken this approach following consideration of the underlying causes of nutrient build-up in affected catchments and after listening to the concerns of local communities, local authorities and house builders, including in relation to the mitigation schemes currently used in some areas to facilitate development, which while positive are moving too slowly with no guarantee that demand can be met imminently. On that basis, the Government therefore believe making this targeted change is the right way to provide certainty and confidence such that much-needed housing can be built for families. Based on the average annual housing delivery in the catchment areas covered by nutrient neutrality between 2015-16 and 2017-18, which is the most recent three-year period unaffected by covid-19 and prior to the first nutrient neutrality guidance issued, the Government estimate that around 16,500 per year are currently affected by nutrient neutrality rules, which amounts to over 100,000 homes by the end of the decade.

Alongside this legislative intervention, the Government are taking more action to tackle the underlying sources of nutrient pollution, restoring nature, and leaving our environment in a better state than we found it. This will not lead to regression in environmental outcomes and our reform package will in fact improve the condition of these habitats sites.

We are significantly expanding investment in and evolving the nutrient mitigation scheme run by Natural England, doubling investment to £280 million to ensure it is sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and 2030. Natural England will work with local authorities, the private sector and others to tackle nutrient pollution and work towards the long-term health and resilience of the river systems. The Government is clear that developers should continue to play their part in tackling nutrient pollution, which is why we are working with the Home Builders Federation to structure appropriate and fair contributions, which we both agree are needed.

The Government will then accelerate work on full site restoration through further work on new protected site strategies, which Natural England will draw up in partnership with local communities to set protected sites on the path to recovery in the most affected catchments with the highest housing demand. These bespoke plans will help identify the wider actions needed to restore habitats and species in specific areas.

The amendments tabled in the House of Lords on 29 August also include measures that directly respond to points raised during passage and expand on the existing provisions which mandate water companies to improve their wastewater treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits by 2030. Those provisions alone will more than offset the nutrients expected from new housing developments by putting in place wider upgrades for the long term. These upgrades will benefit existing homes, not just new homes, providing an effective approach to reducing wastewater nutrient pollution. The new amendments further demonstrate our commitment to improving water quality by enabling catchment-based approaches to be taken, and making explicit on the face of the Bill that nature-based solutions may be used when upgrading wastewater treatment works.

Alongside these measures, we are going further to help farmers to grow food sustainably and protect the environment, increase productivity, and build a more circular economy for nutrients. We are opening a new £25 million nutrient management innovation fund, investing £200 million in slurry management infrastructure, and consulting this year on modernising our fertiliser product standards to drive the use of products based on organic and recycled nutrients. This autumn, we will also launch a River Wye action plan to address the unique nature of the river and how we will work with local farmers, house builders and Welsh Water to reduce nutrients at source.

All of this action is in addition to our new biodiversity net gain policy, which we have strengthened during the passage of the Bill, and builds on our ambitious “Plan for Water”, which sets out stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more than £2 billion of accelerated investment from water companies.

[HCWS1003]

Departmental Update

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Written Statements

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

This statement updates the House on progress that has been made across the Department’s remit.

Update on the Intervention in the London Borough of Croydon

On 16 March 2023, the Minister for Local Government updated the House on the work of commissioners and improvement panels at three councils, including the London Borough of Croydon. Whilst acknowledging the significant steps that had already been taken by the council over recent months, given the depth of the historical challenges and the extent of improvement required, we were minded to move the existing improvement and assurance panel, chaired by Tony McArdle OBE, to a statutory footing.

This proposal followed the evidence provided in the improvement and assurance panel’s latest assessment that the council under the leadership of Mayor Perry has made good progress in laying the foundations for its recovery. At the same time, historic issues continue to be unearthed at Croydon and their potential impact on the council and the progress made to date cannot be underestimated, particularly given its continuing precarious financial position. I concluded that the authority was not meeting its best value duty—a requirement set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The intervention package proposed in March centred on the council continuing to make the necessary improvements to the satisfaction of the improvement and assurance panel, as it has done to date. The panel would be backed by statutory directions issued to the council requiring it to follow the instructions of the panel if they were not satisfied in the future with the progress being made.

I invited representations on our proposals from the council, and from members of the public, which I have now received and considered.

We received one representation from the chief executive of the council. The council supported the intervention and the proposal to move the existing improvement and assurance panel to a statutory footing, although requested some changes to the proposed intervention package to remove risk management and commercial governance as individual priority areas, citing notable progress in these areas. The representation also identified finance, housing and transformation as three pressing priorities which the council needs to address and which should be specifically covered by the proposed intervention package. It recognises the importance of the council continuing to lead its recovery and is committed to continue working positively with the panel moving forward.

Having carefully considered the representations received about the intervention, I am today confirming that the panel will now be placed on a statutory footing.

Best Value Intervention in the London Borough of Croydon

On balance, it is not necessary to identify risk management and commercial governance as individual priority areas at this stage and we have amended the intervention package accordingly. We expect the panel to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the council’s management arrangements.

The intervention package should focus on the three individual priority areas of finance, housing and transformation and we have amended the package to reflect this. On this basis, we have decided to make two new appointments to the improvement and assurance panel. Margaret Lee, Finance Lead, wrote to me on 12 March to tender her resignation for personal reasons. I accepted Ms Lee’s resignation with immediate effect and I would like to thank her for her excellent work in Croydon and wish her well for the future. Along with appointment of a new Finance Lead, we are also appointing a new panel member to lead on housing.

Brian Roberts OBE (Finance Lead) - Brian provided financial support to the commissioner team in Liverpool and was Finance Commissioner at Northamptonshire County Council. Brian is currently Chair of the CIPFA Financial Management and Governance Panel.

Pamela Leonce (Housing Lead) - Pamela is the CEO Founder at Stowhill Careers and has been an Executive Director with experience across the housing, health, social care and criminal justice sector.

This brings the panel membership to five, with Tony McArdle continuing to chair the panel and Jon Wilson and Phil Brookes continuing in their respective roles as leads in adult social care, and commercial and asset disposal. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tony, Jon and Phil for their ongoing work in driving forward the necessary improvements at Croydon and for agreeing to continue leading the Croydon improvement and assurance panel. We will appoint a new panel member for transformation in due course.

The statutory panel has been appointed until 20 July 2025, or until such earlier or later time as we determine. We are clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary.

The panel will be asked to provide their next report within the next three months, with their initial views and an assessment of whether they require further support. I will review panel membership at this point to ensure that the panel continues to be fit for purpose for the council. Future reports will be provided every six months, or as agreed with the panel.

I want to be clear that the council will continue to lead its recovery but that the intervention package and appointment of the two new panel members will ensure momentum is both maintained and increased with the support and expertise of the panel. That is to say that decisions will continue to be made by the council; the intention being that the panel will only use their powers of instruction as a last resort if they are dissatisfied with the council’s improvement processes.

As with other interventions led by my Department, the council will be directed to meet the costs of the improvement and assurance panel. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.

Conclusion

The Government will continue to work closely with the political, business and cultural leadership of Croydon, to ensure the return of the council to sustainability for the long term. We wish to place on record again our thanks for the progress made to date and look forward to further advancement in the months ahead.

I have published the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement on gov.uk and will deposit copies in the Library of the House.

Election finance regulation

In December 2020, the Government uprated election spending limits for candidates at local government elections in England in line with historic inflation since 2014 (3 December 2020, Official Report, HCWS618). At that time, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), announced the Government intention to review party and candidate spending limits for all other reserved polls with a view to uprating them in line with inflation since they were last set.

In September 2022, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), wrote to the members of the Parliamentary Parties Panel in September 2022 to consult them on uprating spending limits and other sums in electoral legislation. This letter was also published on gov.uk.

The Government now intend to proceed with uprating reserved and excepted party and candidate spending limits to reflect changes in the value of money in the years since the respective limits were set. This is an important action as many of the absolute statutory spending limits have not been uprated since they were set over 20 years ago. Limits for UK parliamentary candidates were last uprated by the coalition Government seven years ago, in 2014. The lack of change in absolute terms impacts campaigning ability, given the increased costs of printing, postage and communication, which is vital for parties and candidates to engage with voters. There will be no change in real terms.

The Government also have a statutory duty under section 155 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to review specified sums in that Act, broadly relating to the reporting of donations and regulated transactions, and either uprate those sums to reflect changes in the value of money or where I, as Secretary of State, decide not to amend any of the specified sums make a statement to Parliament explaining why.

It has been more than a decade since these thresholds were last uprated by the last Labour Government in 2009, following their introduction in 2000. If these limits are not uprated the effect is to cut the thresholds in real terms. The principle of a threshold for publishing donations was established following the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Neill Committee) on the funding of political parties in 1998 (Cm 4057), noting the need to balance privacy and transparency; the Labour Government’s response in 1999 (Cm 4413) agreed with this principle.

Therefore, the Government intend to uprate in line with inflation some of these thresholds for political parties, regulated donees, permitted participants at referendums and for unincorporated associations making political contributions, where they relate to the reporting of larger donations. The purpose of these reporting thresholds is to provide transparency around the granting of larger donations, balanced with the administrative burden such reporting may create for the recipient and with the privacy of smaller donors. Uprating these thresholds will ensure that balance is maintained in line with the original policy and legislative intent of Parliament when setting the thresholds. Again, there is no change in real terms.

However, the Government have decided not to uprate some of the specified sums. It is not the Government’s intention to uprate the sums specified in section 95(B)(6) and schedule 11, which relate to third-party campaigners. Given that some of these thresholds are within devolved competence, this is to avoid divergence of these thresholds and thereby risk undue complexity for campaigners. The Government will also not increase the £500 threshold replicated across the 2000 Act relating to the point at which a financial contribution is considered a regulated donation, and subject to permissibility checks. The Government do not consider this threshold to be inadequate. This approach will ensure that all checks on the permissibility of donations and donors remain as they do now, and reflects the stance the Government have taken to prevent foreign interference in elections.

None of these reforms costs taxpayers’ money. Indeed, in Britain, taxpayers do not have to bankroll political parties’ campaigning. Political parties have to raise money themselves, while following transparency and compliance rules laid out in law. Those who oppose party fundraising need to explain how many millions they want taxpayers to pay for state funding instead.

Finally, violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated and should have absolutely no place in our public life. The Elections Act 2022 provides for new measures to tackle intimidation in elections, building on the wider work to address intimidation in public life, as outlined in the written statement of 9 March 2021, Official Report, HCWS833.

No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy. To provide clarity on the issue of whether security expenses fall to be regulated under electoral law, the Government intend to explicitly exempt reasonable security expenses from contributing to spending limits for political parties and candidates at reserved and excepted UK elections, to ensure that these limits are not a barrier to providing adequate security during election campaigns. Many parties and agents already take the view that money spent on the security of a candidate is clearly not money spent promoting such a candidate to the electorate; however, the Government believe there are merits in explicitly stating this in law to provide greater clarity.

The Government will further engage with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and the Electoral Commission on the technical implementation of these measures.

Taken together, the measures will support continued democratic engagement by political parties and candidates; facilitate continued freedom of political expression and association, whilst ensuring our elections remain free and fair.

Update on Government Action in Relation to Onshore Wind

The Government recognise the importance of taking into account the views of local communities in the appropriate siting of onshore windfarms, which is why the Conservative Government in 2016 bolstered the protections that existed in the planning system, helping to protect treasured landscapes and in particular national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt. And following action taken by the Conservative Government in 2016, applications for onshore wind are rightly decided at a local level. These planning changes were introduced by a Conservative majority Government. During the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats blocked the proposals to give local people a greater say.

But the Government are conscious that there is a lack of clarity as to how to meet the test for community backing if there are objections, even where the rest of the community is supportive, and some projects are stalled as a result. The proposed site must also currently be designated in a development plan.

The Government are determined to address these issues, and therefore recently conducted a consultation on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework, including measures for onshore wind. The proposals aim to address local planning bottlenecks and would provide local authorities with greater flexibility when considering new onshore wind planning applications with local support. They included consulting on an approach where onshore wind is still decided at a local level and permission is predicated on demonstrating local support and satisfactorily addressing planning impacts identified by the local community. We also consulted on local authorities having more flexibility to demonstrate their support for areas suitable for onshore wind by allowing more routes to do this than just the local development plan.

The consultation period was open until 2 March 2023, during which we sought the views and opinions of stakeholders, experts, and the public. The responses we received demonstrated strong support for taking steps to enable more developments to proceed, and I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all those who participated in this vital process. I recognise the importance of these views and will set out our formal response to the consultation when we publish it in the autumn.

In the British energy security strategy, the Government also committed to develop local partnerships for onshore wind in England, enabling supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure to directly benefit from doing so.

Government are already doing work in this space and have recently published a consultation focused on how the current system of engagement between communities and developers for onshore wind, and the types of community benefit packages that are offered, can be improved. The consultation closed on 7 July. Government are now analysing the responses received and the response will be published in due course. Where there is demonstrable local support, onshore wind in the right places has the potential to create green jobs and foster economic growth in communities.

[HCWS985]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of levels of antisemitism in the last 12 months.

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

We have paid close attention to the concerning figures produced by the Home Office and the Community Security Trust, which have shown the continued prevalence of antisemitism in our society. We are considering Lord Mann’s recent reports on the subject, which we will respond to in due course, and we have increased the annual Jewish community protective security grant to £15 million in 2023-24.

[Alex Sobel]

Did the Secretary of State see the research from King’s College London, showing that those who believe in conspiracies are most likely to be antisemitic? Much of that antisemitism takes place online and is legal but harmful. What is he doing to tackle conspiracism, misinformation and fake news; why are the measures to tackle them in the Online Safety Bill so weak; and why have the Government removed the legal but harmful provision, which would protect so much of the Jewish community?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a significant overlap between antisemitism and conspiracy theories, and many of the tropes that conspiracists use are drawn from the antisemitic library. However, with the Online Safety Bill it is important to balance the right to free speech with vigilance in dealing with hate, and this Government are absolutely committed to combating antisemitism wherever it rears its head.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to level up all parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to increase devolution in England.

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

We have made significant progress in our mission to extend English devolution. In the past year, we have announced five mayoral devolution deals, which will bring devolution to over half of the English population. Most recently, I was delighted when the wonderful new leader of East Riding council, Anne Handley, signalled her ambitions for greater devolution.

[Tom Randall]

Last week, I attended an evidence session for the all-party parliamentary group on the east midlands’ inquiry into investment in the region, which has been historically underfunded. Business leaders told me that the east midlands combined authority needs to be headed by someone with sharp elbows to get things done in the region. I know there is a man in Mansfield who meets that description, but can my right hon. Friend commit to giving that combined authority the powers to effect meaningful change, including considering west midlands-style powers?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: there is a man from Mansfield who would be an absolutely outstanding metro Mayor for the east midlands, and we need to give him all the power he needs. He has not only sharp elbows but a keen intellect, and he has the interests of the east midlands at heart. What Andy Street has done for the west midlands, Mr Ben Bradley can do for the east midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

You got there.

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

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the West Midlands Combined Authority that the selfsame Andy Street presides over is the second worst performing CA in the UK, judging by its growth figures. In that circumstance, should the public of Warwickshire not have a say in any potential merger with that combined authority, as is proposed in the Secretary of State’s levelling-up Bill that is going through the House of Lords?

[Michael Gove]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but why does he think that Warwickshire cannot compete on the world stage as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority? Why does he have such little confidence in the people of Warwickshire? He has referred to the Mayor of the combined authority. Andy Street is the Mayor who has done most to deliver and, indeed, exceed housing targets as Mayor of the west midlands. Who has done the worst? Labour’s Sadiq Khan.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the implications for his polices of the Regulatory Policy Committee statement on the Renters (Reform) Bill impact assessment, published on 3 July 2023.

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

I have read it, and it seems fantastic.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What a facile answer! Does my right hon. Friend not accept the criticisms of the RPC that the impact assessment is very weak in that it fails to address the impacts of the Bill on competition, innovation and investment, and on landlords who run small businesses and microbusinesses?

[Michael Gove]

I was very pleased that the impact assessment gave the Bill a green rating. I was particularly pleased that it indicated that the likely additional cost would be £17 a year, and that the benefits—both monetised and non-monetised—would be significantly greater than that. It is a progressive measure, which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to join me in supporting.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Renters’ reform is important, as is safe housing. Residents of Norfolk House, a block of flats in my constituency, have suffered burst pipes, dangerous cladding, and sewage and hot water leaks that have ruined multiple flats. Residents have called it a “ticking time bomb” to see whose ceiling will collapse next. Both Galliard, the property developer, and Southern Housing, the housing association, are refusing to address those issues. Will the Minister commit to looking into that case, which has blighted the lives of residents for years?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that, and of course we will. Both the housing association she mentions and the developer she mentions have come to the attention of our Department before, so I am not surprised, but I am disappointed, and we will take action.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of affordable housing in (a) Chesterfield and (b) England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

11. What assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

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

The Union, and support for the Union, is strong, and I was delighted to note that, in the most recent opinion polls, support for independence in Scotland is plummeting.

[Patrick Grady]

That is a very interesting definition of “plummeting”, when that support consistently remains higher than it was in the independence referendum of 2014. We were told during that campaign and afterwards that Scotland would have one of the most powerful wee devolved sub-state legislatures in the entire world, if not the universe, so what is the Government’s baseline for that? Can the Secretary of State give us some examples of Parliaments that are more or less powerful than the Scottish Parliament?

[Michael Gove]

I would just note that, at the referendum to which the hon. Member refers, support for independence was at 45%, but it is currently at 37% in the polls, and 37 is eight less than 45. More broadly, the Scottish Parliament has significant powers. It is a pity that the Scottish Government do not use them and, unfortunately, as a result Scotland’s people are let down when it comes to education, where Scotland is tumbling down. Scotland, sadly, does not have the reforms that we have had in England, which have seen us rise up international league tables. It used to be the case that Scotland’s education system was the pride of the globe, but it is now England that has the best readers of the western world.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

I want to ask the Secretary of State some questions on his role as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and drug policy, of which he has said a number of interesting things. He is on record saying this:

“public health measures, which are backed by strong scientific evidence, which follow the lead of the doctors, the clinicians, we should look seriously at them.”

Drug consumption rooms and the decriminalisation of possession of small quantities of drugs have been proved to work throughout the world, and they have now been proposed by the Scottish Government. Does the Secretary of State accept that the outright rejection of that by the UK Government at the weekend—out of hand—undermines the Scottish Government, undermines those campaigners and those who help drug users, and undermines the Union?

[Michael Gove]

No, I do not accept that, but the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious question. I have had the opportunity to discuss with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) some of the challenges that she faces in her constituency. The hon. Gentleman and I both know that drug deaths in Scotland are unacceptably high, and there is no single answer to that problem, but I believe, as was outlined clearly by politicians from both the Government and the principal Opposition party, that the Scottish Government’s proposals are the wrong proposals at the wrong time.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the heads of all 31 UN agencies have called for possession decriminalisation, and more than 30 countries have made changes that have cut deaths and incarceration. There is no reasonable, rational and evidenced cause for the UK Government, or the Labour party, to reject the proposals out of hand. May I ask him seriously, in his role as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, to be the grown-up on his side of the Chamber, and work and engage with the Scottish Government and drug campaigners on the issue?

[Michael Gove]

As the hon. Gentleman points out, this is a complex, challenging and heartbreaking issue. It is right that the Governments should work together, and with the NHS, law enforcement and others, to deal with this challenge, but I believe that the specific proposals for decriminalisation of possession proposed are not the best way forward.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support house building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

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

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

Which clause?

[Lisa Nandy]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

I have been delighted to confirm that Lord Morse will be the new chair of the Office for Local Government. We are advertising the post of chief executive, which would suit someone with experience of local government who is looking for a new role, so I will pass on details to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mark Eastwood]

Following the wonderful news that the Leslie Sports Foundation, based at Shelley Community football club, has been awarded £318,456 from the community ownership fund, will Minister visit the foundation to view its existing facilities and discuss its exciting plans for the newly funded one?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a brilliant advocate for that project. I have no doubt that the work of the Leslie Sports Foundation will make a huge difference to the lives of people in his constituency. The Minister for Levelling Up, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), would be delighted to visit.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is now over four years since the Conservatives promised to ban section 21 no-fault evictions. It needs strengthening, but the Government finally published a Renters (Reform) Bill in May this year. Given the desperate situation that many renters are currently facing, and the urgent need to provide them with greater security and better rights, why have the Government not lifted a finger to progress that legislation in the weeks since it was published?

[Michael Gove]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to do more to help people in the private rented sector but, as he will have heard, we wanted to make sure that we had a fit-for-purpose impact assessment so that the House could reflect on the changes that we are making and the benefits they will bring.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

T3. What assessment has the Department made of the use of cash retentions in the construction industry and of possible measures that could prevent the practice, which causes cash-flow issues and costly administrative burdens for subcontractors, including those involved in house building?

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

T2. It has been more than 50 days since the Renters (Reform) Bill was introduced to Parliament. Despite ample parliamentary time, the Government have failed to set a date for Second Reading. In the last few weeks alone, the House has finished at 2 pm and 5 pm due to the Government bringing forward no business. Why do the Government not care about renters?

[Michael Gove]

The Bill, as you know, Mr Speaker, is beautifully formed, but the impact assessment that goes with it, as I pointed out earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), needs to be read in the round to see what a great piece of legislation it is. One thing that would enable us to bring forward legislation is if the Labour party were to end its pointless opposition to our Illegal Migration Bill. It is curious that the Labour party seems keener on being on the side of people smugglers than it is on the side of the private rented sector.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T5. The recent transfer of the administration of home equity loans from Target to Lenvi has gone appallingly badly, with my constituents reporting unanswered emails and phones that ring out with no reply when they are looking to transfer their home in a time-critical phase. Will my right hon. Friend update me on what is going on with the administration?

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

T4. According to figures from PricedOut, over the last 50 years housing has become over 13 times more expensive and tenants are now spending up to half their income on rent alone. If that trend continues, only one in three people born this year will own a home before they are 50. The Government’s scrapping of housing targets and surrendering to Back Benchers opposed to new housing will only make the situation even worse. When will the Government grow a backbone, stand up to those MPs and build the houses we need to avoid catastrophe?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, as was pointed out earlier in these questions, the area of the country where housing numbers are worst, where planning permissions are being built out most slowly and where the fewest planning permissions are being granted overall has been London, under a Labour Mayor. I want to work with the Mayor to see him emulate what the Conservative Mayor in the west midlands, Andy Street, has done to deliver housing.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

T7. My right hon. Friend will know from my constant lobbying of him that it is my belief that the revenue support grant mechanism is inherently unfair and means that rural authorities such as Dorset, and particularly in West Dorset, receive little if any revenue support grant compared to the tens of millions that many urban areas, such as Wandsworth, receive. Will my right hon. Friend kindly tell me what he is doing to restore that balance and fairness for rural areas?

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

T6. While the Government drag their heels on section 21, thousands of families are being evicted through no fault of their own by rapacious landlords—let’s be honest about it—with 2,000 families in May alone this year. That is not acceptable. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State has been having cosy meetings with private landlords’ associations, which gives the impression he is on the side of the landlords and not the renters. Will he at least say now that the Bill will come back in September?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch heard the careful case he prosecuted when he said I was on the side of the landlords. In fact, I am on the side of a healthy private rented sector. The overwhelming majority of landlords do a brilliant job and I want to pay tribute to the National Residential Landlords Associations and Ben Beadle for their effective work in this area.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T8. The Department has a very large number of consultations either going out to consultation or being assessed right now. Now that my private Member’s Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, has received Royal Assent, when will my hon. Friend start the consultations required to enact it, so that we can kick out rogue landlords?

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week at business questions I raised the case of Tyrrell Court in Wakefield, where the social landlord, Wakefield and District Housing, has added a new service charge for communal lighting on top of the charge for window cleaning and communal cleaning, despite people having been tenants for 20 years without ever being charged that fee before. It adds up to £125 extra per year. Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that landlords are introducing these charges when people can afford them least?

[Michael Gove]

It does indeed sound a concerning case, and we will follow up.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T9. Property management companies are undoubtedly holding back home ownership. New homeowners are often obliged to sign up to contracts that they cannot leave. That leaves them stuck with inflated fees, and very often with poor services. I am sure the Minister agrees that management companies need their activities curbed; they need legislation imposed on them so that we can get back to a fairer system of housing.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that he had the noble aim of abolishing the feudal leasehold system. Could he update the House on his progress on the abolishment of that feudal system?

[Michael Gove]

It will be in the King’s Speech, God willing.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

The A38 is the main route to the largest city on the Devon and Cornwall peninsula. This nationally significant route needs substantial work between Carkeel and Trerulefoot in my constituency. What work is the Department doing with the Department for Transport to make that a reality?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State says that the Scottish Government are not using the powers that they have, but it is his Government who keep vetoing Scottish Government policies and legislation that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament. Does that not just show that the Conservatives never wanted devolution in the first place and can now barely contain their glee at getting to roll back the powers of devolution?

[Michael Gove]

No, it was the Scottish National party that did not want devolution; it wants independence. It is in the name, isn’t it? They are nationalists and they want to break up the United Kingdom; we extend devolution within England and we support it in Scotland.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Thanks to the Government’s brownfield land release fund, Solihull Council is getting on with the job of regenerating Kingshurst village centre, including by building new environmentally friendly houses. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State accept my invitation to see at first hand the progress of the regeneration of Kingshurst village centre, and see how it can be supported further by a successful levelling-up fund round 3 application?

[Michael Gove]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes a brilliant case on behalf of the residents of Solihull borough.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Fife Council is currently working on the details of the levelling-up fund, which gave us some of our own money back under the last round. Most of that money—over £14 million—is for connectivity projects related to the very welcome reopening of the Levenmouth rail link. Since the bid was put together, it has become clear that by far the most important connectivity project associated with that reopening is the construction of a pedestrian footbridge to maintain the ancient public right of way at Doubledykes crossing in the middle of my constituency. If it becomes clear that the project has support from the community, will the Secretary of State allow Fife Council to reallocate the funding—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please—these are topicals. I have given you the advantage of having two goes. Don’t take advantage of the rest of the Members, please.

[Michael Gove]

I will investigate the matter. It is important that public access is maintained. I do sympathise with the hon. Gentleman: given that there are now no Labour Back Benchers left to ask questions, he has to take the Opposition responsibilities on his shoulders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To strengthen the Union, and with the Windsor framework not able to answer all the difficulties due to the Northern Ireland protocol, what recent discussions have taken place with Cabinet colleagues on pressing the EU for a common-sense approach and on making the necessary adjustments to keep Northern Ireland a functional and integral part of the UK, which is the will of the people?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is the clearly expressed will of Northern Ireland’s people to be embedded in the United Kingdom, and we need to make sure that the EU takes a constructive approach, following on from the publication of the Windsor framework. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary are taking that forward.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

Eastbourne secured £20 million in round 1 of the Government’s levelling-up fund, part of which is set to transform a disused dairy and downland farm into a world-class visitor centre. Will previously successful constituencies, such as mine, be eligible to apply for the forthcoming round 3? We have big plans for the seafront.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Playgrounds are often a godsend for stressed parents. They are great for kids’ development, and they are free entertainment during all these cost of living pressures. Will my right hon. Friend consider earmarking a fund so that parish councils and community groups can bid to improve areas that are in a poor state or that lack the inclusive equipment we all want to see?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for better provision of playgrounds and stronger support for families and young people. The community ownership fund is available for some of the purposes she mentions, but I look forward to working with her to do more in this area.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

1.3 pm

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered building safety and social housing.

Six years on from the night of 14 June 2017, we remember all those affected by the fire at Grenfell Tower. Six years on, 72 months on, 72 lives lost, and thousands more—bereaved families and residents in the north Kensington community—whose grief endures. I know that I speak for not just me, but right hon. and hon. Members across this House, when I say that those most affected by the fire are never far from our thoughts and prayers. It is a particular honour to welcome survivors and bereaved family members to the Gallery for today’s debate, including representatives from Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin.

It takes determination and courage to come and be counted, and to remain so resolute. Like so many in this House, I have been humbled to meet Grenfell community members and know the power of their testimony. Each has their own compelling and moving story to tell, and their own harrowing and unforgettable perspective on events that night. They have been united in their fight to uncover the truth and bring about change, and I hope that we in Government and across this House have been able to listen and to learn from them. I want to take this opportunity, as I do at every opportunity, to apologise again for the role of the Government and others in failings that allowed the horrifying events of 14 June 2017 to unfold. As you will hear today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I share their determination to see the truth uncovered, make change happen, and have all those responsible held to account so that justice is delivered.

The need for all of us in Government to learn from—and never repeat—the scandalous mistakes of Grenfell could not be more profound. I was clear, I hope, when I first became Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, that discharging my responsibilities to those most affected by this tragedy by honouring their loved ones with a worthy legacy was my absolute priority. That meant putting right some of the many wrongs that the bereaved survivors and immediate community have had to face and endure. I am pleased to be joined in that mission by my ministerial colleagues: the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and my noble Friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook, who was first appointed by my predecessor to the independent Grenfell recovery taskforce in the immediate aftermath of the fire. Her long experience of representing the needs of all residents as a former council leader has been invaluable, and I am deeply grateful to Jane for her work.

I am also pleased that today, the House has the opportunity to both honour the Grenfell community and continue to hold the Government to account. As I said last year, I want this debate to take place annually, so that there is no let-up in the opportunities for scrutiny of this Government’s actions and those of future Governments. It is vital that everyone across this House can satisfy themselves that the Government are meeting their commitments and lasting change is being made. Like all Governments, we should be judged on our actions, not just our words, and all actors—including this Government—must take on board some quite tough lessons to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

It is clear that the past actions of many fell well short of the standards that the Grenfell community—the bereaved survivors and local residents—deserved. That is why, with my Department, I remain wholly committed to supporting the independent Grenfell Tower inquiry, through which we may understand the truth about the circumstances leading to the tragedy and see justice delivered for the Grenfell community. That community was unforgivably and inexcusably let down. Evidence given before the inquiry and reporting by distinguished journalists such as Peter Apps point out that in the months and years before the fire, people’s concerns went unheard and ignored, and in the days and weeks after the fire, the institutions that were supposed to help victims were found wanting. I hope that uncovering the circumstances that led to the fire will bring at least some relief and comfort. With the inquiry having concluded its oral hearings last year, Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his inquiry team are now preparing their final report and recommendations. Also importantly, the independent Metropolitan police investigation into potential criminality continues in parallel. It is of the utmost importance to community members that that investigation is able to operate as they seek the justice that they deserve.

The Government have accepted in principle all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report. So far, we have implemented 10 of the 15 recommendations focused on central Government; a significant amount has been done, but there is more to do. The remaining five recommendations are in progress, and I continue to work closely with the Home Secretary to make sure that we deliver on all of them, particularly the recommendation to mandate personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—for disabled residents. One feature of the Grenfell tragedy was the way in which those living with disabilities were particularly vulnerable.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State has said, it is now six years since the Grenfell fire, but new data gathered by Inside Housing shows that only a fraction of high-rise social housing blocks—fewer than one in five—have been retrofitted with sprinklers or fire alarms. A lack of funding is a key reason for that, so can the Government really claim that they are doing everything possible to prevent another Grenfell when people are still living in high rises without those protections?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I know he has a lifelong interest in social housing and cares very deeply about the fates of tenants in those conditions. I would never say that we have done everything that we should. I do believe that significant progress has been made, not least in remediating high-rise buildings and making sure that everyone who should plays their part. I will say a little bit more about it in a moment, but he is right to focus on how, when it comes to fire safety, it is not just the external cladding, which was of course the principal cause of the fire at Grenfell, but internal safety measures that we need to look at. Has progress been fast enough? No. Does resource need to be allocated? Yes. So I do agree with him that more requires to be done.

I was reflecting, just before that very helpful intervention, on the particular fate that disabled residents faced at Grenfell, and the vital importance of making sure that we have personal emergency evacuation plans in place. I hope to be able to update the House with the Home Secretary in due course.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a broad range of issues affect building safety overall. Of course, one finding of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will inevitably be a recognition of systemic failures in the way in which we dealt with building safety, because the public, residents and indeed the Government put their faith in the building and approving of high-rise blocks and in the construction products being supplied for those high-rise blocks. We believed that the law was being followed and that the right thing was being done, but this trust was misplaced and abused. Industry profits, as we now know, were prioritised over safety and the safeguards that should have been observed were flouted.

We are now, with the help of all parties in this House, fixing the broken building safety system and we are seeking redress. I have been clear that those responsible—those at the apex of the building industry—must take responsibility. As of today, a total of 49 developers, including the 10 largest house builders, have signed our developer remediation contract, and I am grateful to them for showing such leadership. All developers that have signed the contract now have a legal duty to get on with remediation.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, one key recommendation of the Hackitt review was to set up the Building Safety Regulator. So he will understand the concern when amendments have been tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill giving the Secretary of State powers to scrap the building safety regime via a statutory instrument. If the No. 1 thing that the state needs to do is to keep its citizen safe, can he explain why those amendments have been tabled, and under what circumstances he would use that power to get rid of that regulator without proper scrutiny in this House?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely would never do anything to undermine the position of the Building Safety Regulator. Indeed, I have been working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive to make sure that we have the right team in place, the right person as regulator and the right powers for the regulator. All the legislation that we are bringing forward—not just the previous building safety legislation, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—is designed to strengthen the hand of the regulator. I would be delighted to talk to the hon. Lady in greater detail outside this House to provide reassurance.

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

The Secretary of State talks about the remediation of buildings. He knows the interest of a company in Glasgow South West that does great work in removing cladding and so on, but it has come across stumbling blocks with insurance companies and insurance premiums. Could he say a bit about the discussions he has had with the insurance industry to make sure that this work is done?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In talking about the shared responsibility that so many have, I have stressed that the Government have a responsibility, as does the construction sector, and insurance companies certainly do. It is the case that insurance companies, unfortunately, are charging premiums that I believe are way above what they should be. That is impeding the capacity of individuals to get on with their lives and it is imposing costs that are unnecessary. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is the Minister responsible for the implementation of the building safety regime, has been talking to the Association of British Insurers, individual insurance companies and insurance brokers to try to make progress. There has not been as much as I would like, but, again, I will update the House in due course, as I know my hon. Friend will as well.

I mentioned developers, and it is the case that developers are taking responsibility for all the necessary work to address life-critical fire safety defects in buildings of over 11 metres high that they either developed or refurbished in England during the 30 years to 5 April 2022. There are more than 1,100 buildings in scope that are unsafe, and the cost will be £2 billion. Again, I am grateful to developers for shouldering that responsibility. Developers must also keep residents informed about the progress of these works. As I know from my own constituency, it is absolutely vital that residents are involved in that process.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I recognise that the Government have started to do some work, particularly on ACM cladding on buildings over 18 metres high, but it has been very slow. Some of the work on 11 to 18 high metre buildings is some distance away. That is really worrying for homeowners who are trapped in those properties. Can the Minister look at how that could be speeded up? Has work been done to look at different types of cladding, because different types of cladding other than ACM are also unsafe?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises two important points. Yes, absolutely, we are now moving to accelerate support for those living in buildings between 11 and 18 metres high. The cladding scheme we are bringing forward has all the energy that Homes England, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), and the Department can deploy behind it. On her second point, of course it is the case that, while ACM was responsible for this particularly horrific tragedy, and also previously responsible for fires in the Gulf and elsewhere, there are other forms of cladding that are also a risk and that we need to remove and have been removing.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I also pay tribute to the families and the survivors who have come here today. While the Secretary of State is rightly focusing on the systemic failures that led to this disaster and on the responsibility of the big players, the agencies and indeed the Government themselves in the lead-up to the disaster and in the immediate aftermath, will he pay tribute to the community groups that stepped forward so impressively on the ground, including some council workers—I am thinking of councillors such as David Lindsay and others? Does he recognise that they were not given a proper voice in the period preceding the fire and that we should do more to engage community groups?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Yes, and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. One of the things that struck me about the North Kensington community and all those affected is the way in which community groups have played such an important part. There are faith groups, including the local Roman Catholic, the local Anglican and the local Methodist churches, and the Al-Manaar mosque. Pre-existing charities such as the Rugby Portobello Trust have been very energetic in providing support, but there is a wealth of other groups, such as the Lancaster West residents association. Of course, those formed in the shadow of the tragedy, such as Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin, all testify to a rich social fabric and to community activism of the best kind. I know he has championed that; he knows—even though he now represents a seat in the west of England—that the work he did with the West London Zone, which is committed to improving social mobility in that area, was an exemplar.

On building safety, I must make it clear that the developers will be held to account for their actions. Those who have made these commitments—again, I am grateful to them—are now eligible to join our new responsible actors scheme. Subject to the will of Parliament, the scheme will come into being this summer.

We are using other levers to hold the worst actors to account over building safety, because it is not just developers who share in the responsibility for putting things right. We are pursuing the most egregious cases of people who have a responsibility—freeholders and others—through our new Recovery Strategy Unit, and other means have yielded or are beginning to yield results. To date, the RSU has started legal activity against three significant freeholders that have responsibility for 19 buildings to protect residents and to ensure safety. These include Wallis Partnership Group Ltd and Grey GR Ltd Partnership, a company ultimately owned by Railpen Ltd. It is vital that all of us recognise that, when it comes to the responsibilities of pension fund trustees, which are the freehold owners in this case, they have a responsibility not just to the beneficiaries of the pension fund, but to those who are living in the homes whose freeholds they own.

Critically, we are also bringing pressure to bear on those involved in the manufacture of the construction products that were there, and were used and abused, in the run-up to the Grenfell tragedy. Three construction project giants—Kingspan, Arconic and Saint-Gobain, the parent company of Celotex—are all coming under pressure. In the last few months, I have written to these companies and invited them to meet me to explain their plans to contribute financially to remediation works on unsafe buildings. I have also written to their investors and assured them that the sights of my Department are trained on these manufacturers, and that there will be legal and commercial consequences should they fail to make satisfactory arrangements. I believe that responsible investors can join all of us in this House in bringing pressure to bear, because their wider obligations to society and their commercial interests are one and the same.

As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) mentioned, we need to work together to ensure not just that the most serious safety problems are dealt with, but that all safety problems are dealt with. However, it is the case that people living in high-rise buildings with the most dangerous cladding, ACM cladding—like that on Grenfell Tower—have received the support and the change needed. Some 96% of the buildings with ACM cladding have now been made safe, or have work under way, and all buildings in the social housing sector with ACM cladding have been addressed.

The Building Safety Act, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), speaking for the Liberal Democrats pointed out, has given us additional regulatory powers, which we shall not hesitate to use. The new building safety regulator will be responsible for overseeing building safety in residential buildings above 18 metres, and it will take enforcement action where necessary.

Building safety, of course, is at the heart of the Grenfell tragedy, but I want to make two other brief points before yielding the floor to others. One is the vital importance of making sure that all of us recall how important it is to listen to the voices of those in social housing. For too long, the voices of too many social housing tenants were ignored. People living in substandard homes told us what was wrong. They described appalling conditions. They enumerated with distressing accuracy the dangerous oversights that led them to feel unsafe in the place that they should have felt most secure. We must never let those voices go unheeded again. We—all of us—must be guided by them as we improve the living conditions and rights of social housing tenants across the United Kingdom.

At last year’s debate, I had just announced that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill in the Queen’s Speech was due to be debated in both our Houses. I am pleased that we are now on the verge of Royal Assent. The Bill codifies our commitment to transform the experience of social housing residents, ensuring that landlords deliver the safe and decent homes that all residents should expect. The legislation was brought forward, of course, as a direct response to concerns raised by members of the Grenfell community, but as that legislation passed through both Houses, we have been forcibly reminded about the need to strengthen it further.

The tragic death of Awaab Ishak in 2020, aged just two, as a result of respiratory conditions generated by the grotesque circumstances in which he was being brought up by the housing association that should have attacked damp and mould far earlier has also led to changes to that legislation. Awaab’s law now requires social landlords to deal with damp and mould complaints to a strict timetable and will ensure that all tenants have the protection that they deserve.

Thanks to the work of Grenfell United and others, that Bill includes provisions to ensure the professionalisation of the housing sector—a consistent demand of the bereaved residents and survivors, and a demand consistent with making sure that those who work in housing get the recognition and, indeed, the respect they deserve as they acquire that additional qualification.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

A lot of us MPs get a lot of housing cases, and I still get cases in which constituents are being blamed for the type of accommodation that they live in. I have cases right now where constituents are being blamed for their lifestyle. This is not filtering through, Minister. This is a real problem, and it is important that, while you are talking about all the things that you are achieving, there is still a lot of work to be done—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important to address the Minister not directly, but through me.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Issues of damp and mould are not a consequence of lifestyle. In fact, when that allegation is made, there is sometimes behind it an unhappy and prejudiced attitude towards some communities and some individuals. We need to call that out, and the housing ombudsman has been clear.

I should also say that I do not believe that I should take credit for these steps; it is about this House and everyone here who has worked together with people outside this House, including Grenfell United, Awaab Ishak’s family, campaigning journalists such as Daniel Hewitt and Vicky Spratt and, above all, the campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa. I think he has done far more than any Minister has to ensure that we get the message on social housing.

The final thing that I want to cover are the particular needs of the community itself. The Grenfell tragedy encapsulated what had gone wrong with our building safety system and what had gone wrong with the way we treat people in social housing. But there are real needs that the community continues to feel. I want to reaffirm the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, in the terrible aftermath of the fire. She said that the Government would be there in that community long after the cameras stopped rolling. She has taken a close personal interest in ensuring that we continue to support the community. Baroness Scott and I will continue to work with other arms of Government, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the NHS, and the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to ensure that the community has the ongoing support that it needs through the conclusion of the inquiry and beyond.

The tragedy at Grenfell Tower was one of the worst civilian tragedies in our history, and the bereaved survivors and immediate community will never forget, nor should they, and nor should we. We seek in this debate and in the work of Government and Parliament not only to honour the memory of those who died, but to build a legacy in their name: safer and greener homes, better social housing, and a lasting commitment to those affected by these terrible events. This Government, this House and, indeed, our whole country have a responsibility and a stake in the future of Grenfell and the community. Across this House, we have pledged to remember the lives lost and to seek truth in their names, and we will honour them by the legacy they inspire.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like others, our thoughts and prayers go to the Grenfell community as we remember them in this debate. It is worth remembering that the Grenfell fire killed 72 people due to flammable cladding, and this House remembers the lives that were lost. It is also worth remembering that during the platinum jubilee celebrations, 72 seats were left unfilled at a street party to remind the community of the lives lost. Each place at the table was set with a name card, napkin, plate, cup and flag. Yvette Williams, a Justice4Grenfell campaigner, said:

“Five years on, a toothless public inquiry and millions still trapped in their homes by flammable cladding—and still no justice. There have been no lessons learned and little action taken. As people up and down the country enjoy street parties, as they quite rightly should, we want to let the powers that be know that our community will always remember the 72 who died needlessly here that night.”

A total of 6,247 people were referred to the dedicated NHS Grenfell health and wellbeing service. Of those, 1,476 were children. Dr Sara Northey, who runs therapy for children and young people at the dedicated NHS Grenfell health and wellbeing service, has described the scale of the trauma as “unprecedented”. She said:

“This is an unusual trauma as it affected a whole community and is definitely ongoing. Grief doesn’t just go away. But what is striking is also the strength people have in the relationships here and the connection people have. At the heart of the trauma is a shattering of safety. We have seen a lot of avoidance of things that remind children of fire. A bonfire or candles on a birthday cake can be quite triggering. Some are worried about electronics in the home and need to check things are switched off. Children are being, kind of, hyperaware of safety in a way that most children don’t have to be.”

I hope that Ministers will tell the House that, while it is important that we concentrate on building safety, they are committed to ensuring that these health and wellbeing services will still be there and maintained to help the people of Grenfell. As the Secretary of State rightly said, there should be an annual debate not just to discuss building health and safety, but it should also ensure that the health and wellbeing of that community is maintained.

[Michael Gove]

indicated assent.

[Chris Stephens]

I see that the Secretary of State agrees; I thank him for that.

The Scottish Government are spending every penny of consequential funding they receive on this programme of work, with committed spend of £1.3 million. The Scottish cladding remediation programme is designed to ensure that there is no cost to property owners and residents for the procurement and production of a single building assessment for each building. The Scottish Government first have to carry out comprehensive and technical assessments to understand the extent of the problem. The vast majority of buildings in the initial phase of the Scottish Government’s programme have secured fire engineers, and a new streamlined process for commissioning the assessments will help to identify at-risk buildings more quickly.

The safety of residents and homeowners in Scotland is of the utmost priority as the Scottish Government work to tackle cladding safety issues through our single building assessment, which has been expanded to more than 100 buildings. We will create a register of buildings that will provide assurance to the public following the completion of any necessary remediation works. If experts identify an issue that needs immediate action to safeguard residents, the Scottish Government will take action and expect developers to do likewise on their buildings.

This can be a complex and time-consuming programme. A number of assessments are either at final or pre-final reporting stage, with discussions on remediation under way. I hope that, at the conclusion of the debate, the Minister will update the House about the discussions that Ministers are having with the devolved Administrations. It is about funding and the Barnett consequentials that kick in when the UK Government spend money.

The Scottish Government have strengthened and will continue to strengthen the building standards system in Scotland, with the building standards futures board established to undertake a programme of work to strengthen the system. The Scottish Government have legislated to improve fire safety by banning developers from using combustible cladding on residential and other high-risk buildings above 11 metres. Scotland was the first part of the UK to ban the highest-risk metal composite cladding material from any new building of any height.

Since 2005, new cladding systems on high rise blocks of flats have had either to use non-combustible materials or pass a large-scale fire test. The building standards legislation removes the option of a fire test, completely prohibiting such materials from use on domestic and other high risk buildings such as care homes and hospitals above 11 metres. In October 2019, the Scottish Government strengthened guidance in relation to combustible cladding, means of escape and measures to assist the fire service. The regulations were passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament to protect lives and property following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire.

I have outlined some of the work being done in Scotland. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I want to emphasise that our thoughts, prayers and love go out to the Grenfell community.

Establishment of Oflog and Publication of Best Value Guidance

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Written Statements

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

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is today establishing the Office for Local Government (Oflog) and publishing new best value guidance for consultation.

Oflog is a new performance body focused on local government in England. It will provide authoritative and accessible data and analysis about the performance of local government, and support its improvement.

By collating, analysing, and publishing existing data about the relative performance of councils, it will help councillors and the public have the information they need to scrutinise more effectively local decisions; it will ensure council leaders can compare themselves against their peers and find examples of good practice to learn from; and it will allow central Government and their partners to identify where there might be challenges and a need to step in to give support, where appropriate.

Oflog will improve the transparency of local government performance by publishing data in a clear and accessible way on the new local authority data explorer. Initially this includes a subset of service areas for data—adult skills, adult social care, finance, and waste management. These service areas will be expanded to cover the breadth of what local authorities do, and the initial metrics will be improved over time.



Local authorities have a critical role in providing essential services and building stronger communities. Oflog will recognise and celebrate the local authorities that do this best—making sure that those local leaders get the credit they deserve and showcase the best in class so others can learn from them. Where local authorities are identified as at risk of potential failure, Oflog will convene dialogues between local authorities and expert local leaders to explore the issues in more detail. In parallel, Oflog will consider performance in areas with devolution deals so that it can reflect their progress.

The Government believe that giving local leaders increased freedoms creates improved outcomes, but we have heard from colleagues that devolution needs to be matched with accountability. Given the scale of ambition of our devolution programme it is right that we have the appropriate checks and balances in the system. Oflog will work closely with DLUHC and local partners, particularly the mayoral combined authorities, to make sure that the outcome metrics used are the most appropriate for holding devolved areas and their leaders to account for their performance.

Oflog is not an attempt to micromanage councils or establish an expensive compliance regime, nor will it require box-ticking or filling in forms. This is not about recreating the Audit Commission.

To give greater clarity to local authorities—and help to identify potential failures—we are also launching a consultation into new statutory guidance on what constitutes best value, and the standards authorities are expected to meet by Government and residents.

This new guidance sets out seven themes of good practice for running an authority to secure continuous improvement and provide value for money. These include the characteristics of a well-functioning local authority and those used to identify challenges that could indicate failure.

The guidance also sets out the models of statutory and non-statutory intervention available when standards are not upheld. We will publish the final guidance after the Department considers the results of the consultation.

Further information on Oflog can be found on the Oflog website, at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-local-government'>https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-local-government which contains the policy document “Office for Local Government—Understanding and Supporting Local Government Performance” and a link to the local authority data explorer.

Further information on the best value guidance can be found on the www.gov.uk website.



A copy of the best value guidance for consultation and the Oflog policy document will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS912]

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Gove Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope the House will allow me first to pay tribute to Lord Kerslake, who, as the House will know, died over the weekend after a short illness. Bob Kerslake was a true public servant, steeped throughout his professional life in local and central Government, and wholly dedicated throughout his career to improving the lives of citizens. He began his career with Greater London Council and went on to run, with distinction, Sheffield City Council—the fourth largest in England—before making the switch to the corridors of Whitehall. He was the first chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, the forerunner to Homes England, a vital arm of Government in making sure that affordable housing is available to all. He was deservedly promoted to become permanent secretary to the Department for Communities and Local Government and, later, head of the home civil service, where he served with great distinction and kindness. Speaking personally as a Minister in the Governments where he served, I was deeply grateful to Bob for his dedication, his generosity of spirit and his wise advice.

After leaving Government, Bob led the inquiry into the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, he chaired the UK2070 Commission on regional inequalities. My colleagues and I greatly valued his work on homelessness with the Kerslake commission, and I think we all agree that his energy, knowledge and wisdom will be greatly missed. I know that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family in their grief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House.

The Bill does four things: it honours a manifesto promise to which this Government recommitted in the last Queen’s Speech; it affirms the important principle that UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government; it ensures that local authorities concentrate on serving their residents, not directing resources inefficiently; and, critically, it provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism.

In our 2019 manifesto, this Government committed to

“ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”

The Bill does just that—no more and no less.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I think it does a fifth thing, which is to introduce a thought crime. Were I to be a leader of a local authority opposed to the provisions of this Bill, once it became an Act, if I continued to say that I disagreed with its provisions and what I might wish to have done with the powers I retained were those provisions not to have been made law, I would be breaking the law. That cannot be right in a free society, can it?

[Michael Gove]

It would not be right if the Bill restricted local authorities from adopting policies that they considered to be in line with Government policy. It is also the case that it would be problematic if we were to restrict freedom of speech in any way, but the Bill does not do that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Gove]

Not at this point—I will in a second.

It is important to stress what the Bill does not do. It does not restrict local authorities adopting policies in line with formal, agreed Government sanctions, embargoes and restrictions. It does not impede local authorities considering legitimate commercial factors related to business with a foreign state, and exercising due diligence in the award of contracts. And it does not prevent a local authority from exercising due diligence when considering whether a supplier or investment target might be involved in environmental misconduct, bribery, competition law infringements or labour misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery. In no way does the Bill circumscribe anyone’s right to freedom of speech or conscience.

What the Bill does do is prevent local authorities from singling out individual nations for discriminatory treatment on the basis of an ideological opposition to that nation and its fundamental basis. Action is required here because there is an existing, organised and malign campaign that aims to target and delegitimise the world’s only Jewish state. That campaign seeks to persuade public bodies to make commercial decisions solely on the basis of harming that state and its people.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so soon in this debate.

Is not the reason every single Conservative Member stood on a manifesto commitment to bring forward such legislation that we understand that there is something fundamentally illiberal, leftist and with deep, ugly connections to antisemitism at the heart of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement? That is what we are trying to tackle today.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall go on to say more about the nature of the BDS campaign because we are not talking in the abstract; we are talking in concrete terms about a campaign that exists, and has been in operation now for nearly 20 years, based on a premise that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The campaign also leads directly, as I shall point out, to antisemitic incidents and a loss of community cohesion.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I just remind the Secretary of State that the Bill goes way beyond the activities of the state of Israel and will apply potentially to other areas of foreign policy, too. Has he considered whether the interaction of clause 1(7) and clause 4 will disproportionately interfere with the freedom of expression, and of conscience and belief, of individuals who are making, or have a stake in, the procurement and investment decisions of public bodies? My view and that of many other lawyers who have looked at the Bill is that it will. Why has he not produced a human rights memorandum analysing the extent to which the Bill interferes with rights under article 10 and article 9, on freedom of belief, of the European convention on human rights, and article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights? Will he do so?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. Nothing in the Bill conflicts with any aspect of the ECHR, not least article 10.

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

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is bringing this legislation to the House today. He rightly mentioned the unsavoury connotations of much of the criticism that the Bill is facing, particularly in connection with the BDS movement. On that point, could he clarify his thoughts on Richard Hermer KC, who has provided advice to the shadow Front-Bench team on this legislation? Mr Hermer has previously authored a chapter in a book called “Corporate complicity in Israel’s occupation: evidence from the London session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine”, which is edited by some extremely interesting people—I fear that they are interesting in the most negative sense. Is this really the calibre of individual who should be advising the official Opposition?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend raises an important question because the Opposition have tabled a reasoned amendment. I believe they have done so in good faith. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, some lawyers take a different view from the Government. One of those lawyers was commissioned by the Labour party to produce a legal opinion, but the gentleman concerned, a distinguished KC, has a record in this area—a record of political commitments that everyone can see clearly predispose him towards a political and particular view on this question.

[Joanna Cherry]

On that point—

[Michael Gove]

No. I am merely pointing out what is in the public domain. Let us turn to the nature of the BDS campaign.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not at this point. The BDS movement deliberately asks public bodies to treat Israel differently from any other nation on the globe. It asks them to treat the middle east’s only democracy as a pariah state and to end links with those who have a commercial presence there. Let me be clear: there are legitimate reasons to criticise the Israeli Government, to question their policy and, if individuals so wish, to repudiate their leadership, as there are with many other countries.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No. Nothing in the Bill prevents or impedes the loudest of criticisms of Israel’s Government and leaders, including by elected politicians at all levels of government.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Michael Gove]

No. But the BDS movement asks that, alone among nations, Israel be treated as illegitimate in itself—

[Dr Whitford]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Michael Gove]

No. The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, has been clear in his opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. He has attacked what he calls the “racist principles of Zionism”—that is, the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The man who founded and is in charge of the BDS movement has argued that Zionist principles

“maintain Israel’s character as a colonial, ethnocentric, apartheid state.”

On that basis, he opposes any idea of a two-state solution—a secure Israel alongside a viable and democratic Palestine. Instead, the BDS movement’s leader wants a

“one-state solution…where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”

It is entirely open to any individual to agree with that proposition, but it is no part of this Government’s determination or intent to give any heart or succour to a movement that argues that the two-state solution is wrong and that Jews should be a minority in one state.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend help us here? As the effect of Israeli policy since 1967 has been to build out of existence the possibility of a two-state solution by settling 700,000 Jews who have arrived in the state of Israel, with their right to go there under Israeli law, it is now no longer possible for there to be a two-state solution, so what is British policy to be?

[Michael Gove]

British policy is, as my hon. Friend knows, to promote a two-state solution. I know that he has a long, passionate and committed interest in this subject and I respect the compassion and knowledge that he brings to the debate but, respectfully, I disagree with him. I believe that a two-state solution is the right approach, which the BDS movement does not believe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the legislation that the Secretary of State is introducing, and we as a party will support it when the time comes tonight. There are many examples in Northern Ireland of councils having overstepped the mark by boycotting goods from Israel and penalising and focusing attention on the small Jewish community. Local authorities should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not ridiculing and condemning our small and minority communities. It is clear to me that the point of the legislation is to make sure that that does not happen, so let us make sure that it goes through tonight.

[Michael Gove]

I agree, as I do almost always, with every word that the hon. Gentleman said.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Gove]

I will take interventions in due course, but I want to make a little progress first.

I want to be clear about what the BDS movement is and what it does. The BDS movement is not, in its origins or operation, a campaign that is designed to change Israel’s Government or shift Israel’s policy. It is designed to erase Israel’s identity as a home for the Jewish people. Again, the founders of the BDS campaign have been clear, saying:

“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the…Palestinian population and…ought to be opposed categorically”.

Alongside those who lead the BDS movement on the BDS national committee sit members of the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—all militant organisations that are proscribed by this Government.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

I will give way in due course, but not at this point.

The effects of the campaign are sadly manifold. The BDS campaign opposes efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to broker peace through a two-state solution, opposes cultural exchanges between Israelis and Palestinians, and fights against co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. BDS has specifically denounced an organisation called OneVoice, which is a joint Palestinian-Israeli youth organisation that campaigns to end the occupation, campaigns against settlements and campaigns for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Because OneVoice does not use the rhetoric of apartheid that BDS deploys, and because it does believe that there should be a Jewish state, it is denounced by the BDS movement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Gove]

I will make more progress and then give way.

Where the BDS campaign has been adopted and endorsed there have, unfortunately, been real community-cohesion problems. We have seen an increase in antisemitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement, including supermarkets removing kosher products from their shelves following specific protests. The Community Security Trust has recently recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents.

In evidence adduced before the Supreme Court in 2020, the following point was made. The evidence said that

“although anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian campaigning in itself is”,

obviously,

“not anti-Semitic, there is a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour in connection with campaigns promoting a boycott of Israel. For example, protests outside an Israeli-owned shop in central Manchester in summer 2014 led to some Jewish people using the shop being racially abused by protestors, including shoppers”—

I hope the House will forgive me—

“being called ‘Child killer’, comments such as ‘You Jews are scum and the whole world hates you’, and Nazi salutes being made at Jewish shoppers using the Israeli-owned store. On social media, hashtags such as #BDS, #BoycottIsrael and #FreePalestine are regularly used by people posting anti-Semitic tweets and comments.”

That is why Labour Friends of Israel has rightly stated:

“BDS damages communal relations and fosters antisemitism at home, while doing nothing to further the cause of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Public bodies should not be singling out the world’s only Jewish state for boycotts.”

Luke Akehurst, a Labour NEC member speaking in a personal capacity, has also argued that we should

“welcome the Government’s proposed bill to end the ability of public sector bodies to carry out boycotts and divestment.”

Mr Akehurst added that he was against BDS more widely

“because it deepens the divisions in the Middle East conflict rather than encouraging dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS demonises and delegitimises Israel”. 

I agree with Labour Friends of Israel, I agree with Luke Akehurst, I agree with the Board of Deputies, and I agree with the Jewish Leadership Council, all of whom back this Bill. I agree with the French and German Governments who have taken action against the BDS movement, and I agree with all 50 Governors of US states—Democrat and Republican—who have denounced the BDS movement. The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Although I disagree fundamentally with the point that he has just tried to make, my question to him is this: has a single diplomatic post specifically advised that the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council requirements and resolutions?

[Michael Gove]

I am sorry, but I missed the point—forgive me.

[Alicia Kearns]

Has any diplomatic post specifically advised the Government that what is being proposed this evening in the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council resolutions?

[Michael Gove]

I know of no such advice.

[Mr Dhesi]

This ill-drafted Bill has multiple contradictions, as excellent legal advice has highlighted, and it may actually contravene international law. Although the Secretary of State may be happy that he will have these additional powers, the Bill will no doubt be subject to multiple legal challenges, and therefore a lot of taxpayers’ money will once again be wasted by the Government. Does he concede that well beyond BDS and the middle east, the Bill may hamper the UK’s ability to protect and preserve human rights across the world?

[Michael Gove]

No, I absolutely do not. The Bill enhances the UK Government’s ability to protect human rights across the globe. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about legal challenge, it is the case that organisations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and others have challenged the Government in this area in the past. They may do so again, but I am confident that the Bill is legally watertight. On the point—

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question first.

On the point about the legal advice from Mr Hermer KC, as I have said, we believe that that legal advice is flawed and it comes from someone who has a clear political record of partiality on this question.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I hope he will recognise that many of us in this House have stood up to the BDS movement. Therefore, his rather intemperate suggestion that only if we support this legislation are we against antisemitism does not pass muster. Does he recognise that those of us who would like to see local authorities challenged—perhaps through the Equality Act 2010—can find troublesome elements in this Bill? It is almost as if his myopia about the BDS movement has blinded him to the consequences of this and what it could do.

The Secretary of State boasted earlier that there were exemptions around labour rights and environmental laws, but is it not ironic that the Bill does not include an exemption around genocide? Those of us who have communities that are desperately concerned about the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas or what happened in Sri Lanka recognise that this legislation could stop our speaking out for them. Will he work with us—those of us who want to tackle antisemitism and to stand up for human rights—and rethink his proposals?

[Michael Gove]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and I acknowledge her work to fight antisemitism and stand against the BDS movement—more than acknowledge it, I applaud her for it. I would say three things. First, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that prevents the UK Government or other public bodies from taking appropriate action against Myanmar, against China over the treatment of the Uyghurs or against Russia and Belarus over their aggression towards Ukraine. I have seen no solid legal advice to suggest that is the case at all.

Secondly, if the hon. Lady or anybody else wants to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, I am completely open to them. I have not yet seen any such amendments, but I know she and others in this House are skilled in drafting legislation, and I look forward to seeing the appropriate amendments. However, as we have seen in the past, attempts to deal with the specific menace that the BDS campaign creates through guidance have not been sufficient. Primary legislation is required. The shape of that legislation I hope we can decide together across the House.

[Dr Whitford]

The Secretary of State mentioned that it is the UK’s long-standing policy to support a two-state solution. It is also the UK’s long-standing policy to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. The UK endorsed United Nations resolution 2334. Why is there no differentiation in the Bill between Israel and the occupied territories? Does that not increase the risk of antisemitism?

[Michael Gove]

No; they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in listening to the rather strong opinions on the Bill, but can I press him again to consider alternative ways to deal with the threat of BDS without offering the glass jaw that I see clause 3(7) as presenting to parliamentarians, and to work with me and others to find a better way to do this? I will also say that ad hominem attacks on independent counsel, whoever they are, are not advisable and not wise.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Of course we are completely open to the consideration of any amendments that can give better effect to the shared intentions that we have across the House to deal with this movement. However, Israel is there in the Bill because of the clear nature and the clear and present activities of the BDS campaign. Were there to be an alternative, one would have to make sure that it dealt effectively with that area.

[Sir Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the generosity he is showing in giving way. I support what he says about the importance of setting a clear marker on the menace of the BDS movement and its impact across communities. Does he agree that the Bill potentially goes further, in a positive way, by making the point that it is for local government to spend taxpayers’ money on services and other issues for their constituents in the best available way, not using it—or abusing it—on ideological issues, and that, whether in expenditure for the local community or through local government pension scheme investments, it should be aimed at getting the best return for constituents and beneficiaries, not at driving ideological wedges between communities?

[Michael Gove]

I think my right hon. Friend is completely right. Local government has a critical role in delivering public services, including support for the most vulnerable in our communities. It is vital that central Government support it in that endeavour and that local government should not be diverted from its core purpose by other temptations.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said earlier that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, but the manifesto commitment was not country-specific; it was country-agnostic. There was no mention of Israel or BDS in it. Indeed, another manifesto commitment was that we would champion freedom of expression and tolerance. He will recall that a former Secretary of State for Education wrote to all our universities to ensure that they allowed freedom of expression. How is that compatible with clause 4(1)(b), which states that any person who

“would intend to act in such a way”—

of having a boycott on any part of a foreign country—

“were it lawful to do so”,

would be prohibited from doing so and would be penalised by the courts for doing so? How does that represent championing freedom of expression and tolerance?

[Michael Gove]

I should say to my hon. Friend, whose commitment to advancing peace and to freedom of speech I respect, that all the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that boycotts and boycotts in name only cannot be brought forward. It has absolutely no effect—chilling or otherwise—on the exercise of freedom of speech.

[Tim Loughton]

I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a particular problem to do with Israel and BDS, but the Bill is not country-specific. Nor is it specific on whether it applies to investment or disinvestment. Of all the Bills I have ever read, it is particularly woolly in its drafting. Will the Secretary of State respond to a few scenarios? We found out that a number of local authorities in this country are twinned with Chinese towns. If they choose to un-twin with those Chinese towns, will they fall foul of the Bill? They are investing in twinning offices and travel expenses. If they were instead to set up a twinning agreement with a Taiwanese town, for example, or to set up a Hong Kong freedom centre, would they fall foul of the legislation? Indeed, under clause 1(2), on decisions

“influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,

would flying a Ukrainian flag over a town hall fall foul of the Bill as well?

[Michael Gove]

I cannot see that any of those actions would fall foul of the legislation in any way. It is clearly the case that, in each of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions, particularly with respect to China, the Government are taking appropriate action to demonstrate our consistent disapproval of China’s behaviour, not just in Xinjiang but specifically, as he rightly mentions, in Hong Kong.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Michael Gove]

Not at the moment.

It is important, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to make clear that there is no evidence that anything in the Bill will impede our ability or that of local government to act against modern slavery in Xinjiang or environmental misconduct in Myanmar, or to maintain a united front against Russian aggression. Nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent any individual, including councillors, from articulating in their own right any opinion that they personally hold. It is also important to make clear that nothing in the Bill changes in any way UK Government foreign policy or our position on the middle east peace process. Nothing in it alters our support for an adherence to UN resolutions, and nothing in it explicitly or implicitly supports current Israeli Government policy towards settlements in the west bank.

[Mr Wragg]

By virtue of my right hon. Friend’s capacious mind, he has had the UK’s foreign policy delegated to his Department as well. He said in answer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—indeed, he just reiterated the point—that nothing in the Bill will endanger our international obligations. Presumably, with that capacious mind, he has read the write-round from the Foreign Office, which says directly that FCDO lawyers advise that the clause on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories would significantly increase the risk of the UK being in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334. Has he had a word with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Yes. Across Government, every Minister supports the Bill, and quite rightly, because it gives effect to our manifesto commitment and ensures that we live up to the responsibilities that we have to deal with divisive campaigns that operate on the ground in a way that adversely affects minority communities and, most especially, the Jewish community.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Gove]

I am coming to the end of my remarks.

I recognise that many people have, in good faith, expressed concerns about aspects of the Bill, but I point out that the provisions are specifically designed to provide a high bar to ensure that local government acts as it should in accordance with the interest of its citizens, to ensure that UK foreign policy is articulated with one voice, and to ensure in particular that a campaign that those on both Front Benches are clear has been responsible for the demonisation of the state of Israel, for the delegitimsation of its right to exist and for discrimination against Jewish people in this country, is, at last, dealt with. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I said earlier, the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected. I call Lisa Nandy to move that amendment.

Investment Zones: Scotland

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Written Statements

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

Investment zones are a crucial part of levelling up, and are designed to deliver economic growth, more high skill jobs, investment, and future opportunities for local people—a key priority for the Prime Minister.

The UK and Scottish Government have jointly announced that there will be two investment zones in Scotland and that the Glasgow city region and north-east of Scotland region offer the most potential to host these. This is a significant milestone for the investment zone programme, and for our wider ambition to level up the whole of the UK as set out in the levelling up White Paper.

This is the result of significant joint work between the UK and Scottish Governments to identify investment zone areas in Scotland, reflecting Scotland’s specific geography and economic landscape. The speed at which we have been able to develop this work is testament to the strength of the partnership between the UK and Scottish Governments. The locations of the Glasgow city region and the north-east of Scotland have been selected based on several criteria, including their research strengths, an assessment of economic need and potential, and a consideration of geographic spread.

Subject to final approval, investment zones will benefit from an overall funding envelope of £80 million each over five years. They will help to level up Scotland and drive long-term innovation and economic growth in selected areas. These will be focused around research institutions such as universities and focus on driving growth in priority sectors including digital technology, the creative industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the green sector.

Our ambition is for these investment zones to make the most of both reserved and devolved policies as is the case with green freeports. We will publish further information jointly with the Scottish Government in due course and will continue to work in partnership, including with regional partners, the private sector and communities across Scotland to ensure our programmes’ overall objectives are achieved.

[HCWS902]

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committal

Lord Gove Excerpts

Committal (to a Select Committee)
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which she has introduced these four topics. We are talking mainly about the instruction motion; I do not think that the others are very exceptionable.

I think I may have served on more hybrid Bill Committees—and certainly for longer—than most people, including that of High Speed 2. I doubt that the situation is quite as my hon. Friend described it. Hybrid Bill procedure exists for a reason: to protect the rights of those who are specifically affected by a Bill and allow them to put their case to a Committee. By making clause 2 the principle of the Bill, as well as clause 1—as I said before, there is no controversy about clause 1—the Government have already spent £17 million or more achieving nothing. They are now proposing to spend an extra £80 million to £100 million achieving not very much. I suggested in a previous debate that the Government should consider how to get a national holocaust memorial up—close to Westminster, if they want—within two years. Of course, the Government would not, as I have explained before, achieve it in four to five years extra, over and above the eight years that have been used up so far.

To go back to the hybridity, it is a matter of record that the Government declared in front of the examiners that this was not a hybrid Bill. They were wrong; it is a hybrid Bill. The reason for a hybrid Bill is so that people have the right to petition. The Government tried to stop that. I think that it is fairly clear to anyone who looks at this that the Government are now seeking to achieve the same result by using this instruction. It is up to the Government to decide whether the instruction, as introduced, is an abuse.

It would be quite easy for the Government to stand up and say what things the petitioners might rightfully put in a petition and be heard on, rather than telling the Committee that they cannot be heard. In addition, because this is a local park for local people, I believe not just that advertisements should be put in newspapers or in the gazette, but that a leaflet should be given to every resident, no matter how small or large their home, from, say, Vauxhall Bridge, Victoria station, along Victoria Street and south of Victoria Street up to the embankment. Those people should be told how the procedure works, how they can petition, what they can petition on and how they can be represented together by a common agent, if they want to be. That is what happened in my experience on HS2.

The instruction, as described by the Minister, would make the whole Bill part of the principle of the Bill. That is not common. In fact, I do not know of it happening before. The whole of the Bill cannot be made the principle, because that then makes it impossible for the petitioners to have their cases heard effectively. So I think we need to accept that the petitioners will be heard on nearly everything that is not an abuse. If someone says, “I do not want any money spent on it,” I can understand not allowing that. That is the principle, but the rest of it, I argue, is not.

Paragraph (3)(a) of motion 6 refers to a petition that relates to

“the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere”.

I ask this explicitly: can either the Secretary of State or the Minister stand up and tell me now that, if someone wants to argue in front of the Committee that it would be better to have the basement box somewhere else and just have the memorial, would that petition potentially be heard by the Committee?

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

I think it would be a matter for the Committee.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I agree with the Secretary of State that it would be a matter for the Committee, but it is a matter for the Committee under the instructions.

By the way, if it helps those who are concerned about votes and trains, I intend to vote for both amendments, but force a Division only on one of them. I am trying to make sure that these issues will be considered in the House during the Bill’s remaining stages and in the House of Lords as well, where I suspect there will be a degree of scrutiny.

This hybrid procedure gives ordinary people a chance to have their voices heard, and it allows the Committee to insert conditions when the Bill comes back to the House. Those conditions, I believe, could include—I am not going to tell the Committee what it has to do, although I volunteer to be a member if anyone wants to put me on it—saying that the Government should, before this Bill comes back for its further stages on the Floor of the House, show the alternatives to the present plans.

I do not think we should rely on the planning inspector, whose conditions were rather odd before, or on the Secretary of State’s colleague making an independent decision on the Secretary of State’s application. I think that may formally be an acceptable procedure, but it is not one that anyone would justify if we were giving a lecture on democracy in another country.

I believe that the Committee should have the capacity or ability to hear petitions that say, “If the Government say that the memorial only takes up 7.5% of the land in Victoria Tower Gardens, that should be written in as a condition in the Bill.” I believe, notwithstanding the acceptability of paragraph (2)(a) about the money, that the Committee should be able to say that the House can consider the Bill on the condition that the total cost is not more than another £80 million, if we go ahead with the box, or preferably £20 million without the box, whether at the north end of Victoria Tower Gardens, or Parliament Square, or Whitehall, or College Green.

There are a whole series of other things I could say—I have a long, detailed speech and I apologise to those who helped me create the arguments—but I think the House will find it convenient if I leave it with this point. This hybrid Bill must be considered properly by the hybrid Committee, which should allow petitions to be heard. Local people will put their points of view forward. If some duplicate each other, hear them together, but do not exclude any point of practice or of principle if we want to get a holocaust memorial in the next two years. We will not with this process. It needs conditions to change it.

We will not even, in my view, get it within the next four or five years at £120 million, unless the Government wake up to the fact that this is sticking in a big box that does not do what the original plans wanted in a place where it is not appropriate. We can do better than that, and I ask the Secretary of State to recognise that that is the point of moving these amendments. I ask the House not to restrict the petitioners. The Government have now accepted that this is a hybrid Bill, so use the procedures properly and be democratic.