Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry to hear what has happened to Mrs Abdeen. I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, and my officials and I are very happy to work with her to make sure that any late applications are considered. It sounds like this was a late application, and I am happy to work with her offline.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work and for his constructive statement. When can we expect Fujitsu to be held accountable and to pay significant compensation to those affected?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. We should not prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. It is a statutory inquiry, and we should respect the processes it is undertaking. It is due to conclude later this year, and we hope for a report very shortly afterwards. At that point, we should be able to determine who is responsible and what action should be taken to make sure that their actions are properly dealt with in terms of individual responsibility or corporate responsibility, which may include a contribution to the compensation funds.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course we have considered those concerns, and we considered the amendments in the other place. We feel that what we are proposing with this legislation strikes the right balance. I fully accept that the hon. and learned Lady disagrees with that position.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the Government’s own, belated, impact assessment suggests that the Bill is ineffective? It is just unworkable. In fact, I think both the Secretary of State for Education and the Transport Secretary have said the same. The Bill will just make matters considerably worse in terms of industrial relations.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not what has been said, and I disagree with that perspective. The fact that other jurisdictions and other nations use this approach to making sure there are minimum service levels to protect the public, their lives and their livelihoods is indicative that it is the right thing to do. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, derogations exist in parts of our public services that do exactly what we are requiring services to do with minimum service levels; it is just that they do not work effectively all the time.

Town and Country Planning

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.

I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.

Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.

Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.

This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.

Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.

What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.

Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.

At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.

To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Amesbury]

In a moment.

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I happily quote the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who strongly advised the Prime Minister to get a “better housing adviser”. I find it difficult to disagree. Permitted development has been disastrous for our towns and cities since its introduction by the coalition Government in 2013 and things are about to get a whole lot worse. That is not me saying that—it comes from the Government’s own advisers. In fact, on the day that the Secretary of State laid two of the three statutory instruments that we have prayed against, his own commission’s review of permitted development was published—and it was damning.

The review found that only 22% of permitted development dwellings met the Government’s own space standards, fewer than 4% have access to a private amenity space and a vast majority have only single-aspect windows. These are not beautiful homes—in the words of another Government commission report—these are the slums of now, the slums of the future.

The Royal Institute of British Architects president, Alan Jones, put it like this:

“The arrogance and lack of understanding is breathtaking.”

It is not just RIBA that think the extensions to permitted development are a bad idea; they are opposed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association and many more. Aside from some developers looking to make a quick buck out of shoddy housing, who supports these pieces of legislation?

With a slight nod to the fact that windows for people in flats might be a step forward, all three SIs allow councils to challenge developers if there is inadequate lighting provision.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s tone. He and I got on very well as co-members of the Select Committee, and he will know from his experience on that Committee that the problems with Grenfell, which he lays at the Government’s door, were decades old in the building regulations system. This is not something he can lay at the door of this Government—there were decades of failure. The issue in relation to the £40 million Westferry windfall for the developer is factually incorrect; there would simply have been a reduction in the amount of affordable housing on that development. On the space standards, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, today the Government set out clearly that space standards will be included in future permitted development rights.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of Grenfell, I referred to the draft building safety Bill and gateway 1. Certainly in terms of planning permitted development, there is an issue there—it is an issue that we will undoubtedly discuss beyond the debate today. With regard to the concession to the rebels, and the fact that we have laid the motions today, of course we welcome baby steps forward—finally, there is a concession that actually people deserve space as well as windows. That is a step forward, undoubtedly, but major problems remain with permitted development.

Westferry Printworks Development

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

In this afternoon’s debate, we have heard strong and powerful interventions from parliamentarians, particularly from the Opposition Benches, that were centrally about restoring faith and trust in our planning system. In fact, it is about the integrity and honour of our Ministers and the moral authority of the Government—an authority that has been undermined by the actions of some, which imply that the rules, and in some cases even the laws, do not apply to them. From Dominic Cummings to, seemingly, the Secretary of State, it is a case of do as I say, not as I do.

I thank many of the MPs who have spoken today in defence of the standards required in the ministerial code and an accountable transparent planning system. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for opening the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, who spoke eloquently as always, and the new hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), who gave a personal and touching maiden speech on which I congratulate him. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones).

I also thank Government Members for their creative attempt to defend the indefensible. At the heart of their argument, the defence of the Secretary of State is that he was merely caught in a timeline of an extraordinary set of coincidences. There was the coincidental seating arrangement at a dinner, with Richard Desmond as well as four senior executives from Northern & Shell and Mace; the coincidence that the Minister was shown a four-minute promotional video for the £1 billion development by the said guests on the table; the planning approval that coincidentally occurred the day before a £50 million levy—I stress: levy—would be charged; and the coincidence that a £12,000 donation was paid into Tory coffers just two weeks later. Just coincidences.

What is not a coincidence—Tory Members skated over this one—but is a fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State overruled the planning inspectorate, was taken to the High Court by Tower Hamlets Council, and has admitted acting unlawfully, with apparent bias. I stress in big bold capital letters: unlawfully, with apparent bias. Fact. What is also a fact is that the Secretary of State has resisted every request and every attempt to disclose all correspondence leading up to this unlawful planning direction, up until this debate today. I know that, as we have been speaking in this debate, the media have been well briefed about what is going their way. If the Minister had nothing to hide, he knew what to do, and he has had weeks to do it, so why wait until now and go through all this pain and grief and claim that these are cheap political points? Unlawful. Broke the law.

At least we know now, unlike when I first called for an investigation by the Cabinet Secretary, that Mr Desmond donated to the Minister’s party after his application was approved. We know that the Minister watched a video all about the development at a fundraising dinner. In fact, Richard Desmond has been quoted by Opposition Members as saying, “He got the gist after three or four minutes.” Those were his words, not those of Labour or Scottish National party Members. The Secretary of State not only saved Mr Desmond £50 million in money that would have gone into community development by approving the application when he did—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

A levy.

[Mike Amesbury]

Yes, it was a levy, as the hon. Member is right to point out, so it would not have been his personal money out of his pocket, but it was undoubtedly a saving. After the development was given a direction— I will not say called in, but given a direction, given after the decision was overruled as unlawful—Mr Desmond saved another £106 million or so by including fewer affordable houses. Those are the very homes that many of our key workers require. We have all clapped for them every Thursday. Every Thursday, we hear “Homes for the new heroes!” Surely they need and deserve those homes.

The Housing Minister, at a recent meeting of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, was pressed and pressed again on social housing. How many social houses? What is the target for social housing? How many are going to be built? He was asked four, five or six times, but when we check Hansard to see if there was an answer, we find there was no answer at all—he said there were no targets for social housing, none at all. Under Labour, an average of just under 28,000 social houses to rent were built per year; last year, under this Government, the number was 6,600, although I might be being a little bit generous there. [Interruption.] Don’t talk to me about the definition of affordable housing—the vandalised version, which is no real definition at all. It is not true.

To conclude, the Prime Minister, outlining his expectations in the ministerial code, is very clear that there must not be any misuse of taxpayers’ money and no “actual or perceived” conflicts of interest, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. If the Prime Minister is so confident that the Secretary of State has abided by the code and has nothing to hide, we would expect that he and Government Members will support this Humble Address and publish in full—I stress, in full—all documentation and emails associated with this application. That includes correspondence from the advisers, the lobbyists and the Prime Minister himself—in full. It will be interesting to see what has been spun to the media while we have been having this debate.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

I do not disagree about quality, but we should also think about choice and affordability, and that is the key thing that this Bill addresses.

One parent wrote to me about a particular school that demands a different uniform for each house group. The march towards “if a child wears it, brand it with an embroidered logo” must end, to drive down costs and make uniforms genuinely inclusive.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am delighted to sponsor the Bill. The hon. Gentleman mentions branding. Will he confirm that it is not his intention to stop all branding on school uniforms? It is quite appropriate for schools to require a badge on the blazer to promote the identity of the school and pride in the school, and he is not trying to restrict the ability of a school properly to brand its uniform.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sponsoring the Bill. I can confirm that it is not anti-branding. As we go through proceedings on the Bill, things will become clear. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention.

The Bill also paves the way to extending choice and stimulating competition in the local retail market to bring down costs for many hard-pressed families—a point well made by the Competition and Markets Authority back in 2015, when it reminded school heads and governors to avoid making their uniforms available only from a single specialist retailer, which undermines competition and the equalising properties of school uniforms. Many parents are left unable to afford the right uniforms and have got into debt. There is also an effect on children. Wearing the wrong school uniform can lead to a child being bullied, left out or even excluded from school, which of course impacts on their education. The Children’s Society estimates that 500,000 children were sent home for wearing the wrong clothes—something I have had confirmed by many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have met the Schoolwear Association, which shared that research with me. The research I am referring to is from 1,000 parents who talked about the real costs of uniforms. The hon. Gentleman is right to cite some very good retailers and manufacturers out there that are providing good-quality manufactured goods. This Bill is not about penalising them—far from it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) about the cost of uniform, the £340 in the research is not just for the uniform. It is also for shoes, bags and other things. The cost of the branded items, according to the research, was only £100 and they normally last for two years, so the actual cost of the branded items is more like £50 a year. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that point?

[Mike Amesbury]

The cost, of course, varies and the uniform is the uniform. If a school says a cap, a coat, a bag, a tie—all branded—are needed, some children will definitely feel left out if their parents do not buy those things, and families will struggle. It is a story I have heard numerous times from my constituents, and I know it is a national issue. Members across the Chamber will know of stories of hard-pressed families in their local communities. One of the most concerning things that the researchers found—I am sure we have heard these stories across this Chamber—was that too many parents choose a school based on the cost of the uniform. The Children’s Society has estimated that this has affected 500,000 children, and I hope we can all agree that parents should never be put in that position.

Privatisation of NHS Services

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 23rd April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Sir Graham. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on his introduction of the debate. May I start by clarifying a point in his opening remarks? He conflated, I think, paying for healthcare and outsourcing, which to my mind are two completely separate things.

Let me explain something that informed my thinking on this subject many years ago. When my son, who is now 21, was only one, my wife and I went to Menorca as new parents, and our son took ill on the last day, after a lovely week there. He deteriorated quite badly in the middle of the night, and we were told by the doctor to take him to a hospital. We went to a lovely, shiny steel-and-glass hospital and rushed him in. By the time we got to the hospital, he was barely breathing, and new parents panic so much in those situations. We carried him to reception, thinking that he was only a few gasps from passing away, and we were asked, before they treated him, to present our credit card. We waited for 20 minutes while that was dealt with, and those were the longest 20 minutes of our lives, so I think that any Government Member or, indeed, anybody in the Chamber today who would consider moving the current system from a system of taxpayer-funded care to one in which people pay at the point of delivery would be misguided, to say the least.

This debate is not about whether we pay for care, and let us be clear: healthcare in this country is not free; it is taxpayer-funded. But the foremost principle—the foremost thing we must get right—is what is in the best interests of the patient. That is the principal thing that we should be discussing. The second thing that we should be discussing is what is in the best interests of the taxpayer, who funds the care of all the people who need care in this country. The third thing is who provides that care. This is patient first and certainly profit second. No ideology about private sector interest or involvement, or purely public provision, should get in the way of that. This debate should be about how we deliver the best service most effectively and efficiently. The question we should be asking today is how we provide a world-class service to get the best outcomes for patients and the best deal for the taxpayer.

To me, what the evidence points to is clear, despite the very good points that Opposition Members make about fragmentation. I accept that there are at times problems with commissioning that we need to resolve and get right, but to me a blend of public and private sector interests—a partnership between the two—would provide the best outcomes. Indeed, a report by the World Health Organisation emphasised the value of competition and the incentive structures of private organisations as spurs to good performance, while recognising the need for a public role in resource allocation. That, to me, says everything about how we should manage our health system.

As has been said, there are a number of different private providers. I do not think that anybody is arguing that GPs, for example, should not be involved in our healthcare system, or community care or residential care, and they are all private sector providers. It is also fair to point out that the rate of growth for private sector provision over the last seven years, since the coalition Government of 2010, is very similar to that for private sector provision before that time. This issue should not be party political; those are the facts. The figure went from 2.8% in 2006-07 to 4.4% in 2009-10 and then, I think, to the current 7.7%, so the rate of growth is very similar. Those facts are from Full Fact, which is an independent fact-checking organisation.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great battle of ideas in the past resulted in something that seemingly we now all take for granted and claim to love—the NHS? Historically, the NHS was opposed; in fact, it was opposed 22 times on a three-line Whip by the Tory party, so the idea of the NHS, which is free at the point of delivery and based on need, is of course politically driven. My political party helped to create the NHS. It was a key driver in that and will certainly save and grow the NHS.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that point entirely. We all love the NHS and respect so much the work of the people who work in that service, so congratulations on the fact that Labour introduced the NHS, but that is not the point. This debate should not be about ideology; it should be about what works.