Holocaust Memorial Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

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

“this House, while accepting the value of a national Holocaust memorial, declines to give a Second Reading to the Holocaust Memorial Bill because no adequate reason has been given for seeking to build the memorial and learning centre in a long-established small public park, thereby contradicting the Government’s own policies on environmental and green space protection; because the Government has not implemented its 2015 promise to establish an endowment fund for Holocaust education, which would have spread the benefits of the learning centre around the country; because the proposed site is opposed by many in the Jewish community, including many Holocaust survivors; because there was no public consultation on the choice of site; and because there has been no consideration of alternatives to Victoria Tower Gardens since the criteria declared in September 2015 were set aside.”

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for how they have introduced the debate on the Bill. Just to clear up one thing that may have been inadvertent, my right hon. Friend responded to my intervention by talking about 2016 to 2017. My precise question was on how it went from the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s specification in September 2015 to 13 January 2016, when some say the first suggestion of using Victoria Tower Gardens was considered by the foundation. The Government publicly announced later that month that that was what they had decided. I repeat my assertion that there has been no public consultation on that site.

I meant to start my remarks by saying that, within months of my birth in July 1944, and besides my father getting rather badly injured in Normandy, later that year, Margot and Anne Frank caught typhus in Bergen-Belsen. They died early in 1945. In April 1945, my father’s cousin—my first cousin once removed—Dr George Woodwark was one of the Westminster medical students who went to Bergen-Belsen to try to save as many lives as they could. They did valiant work in appalling conditions.

When I heard directly from George what it was like, I was as moved as I was when I first read reports of the concentration camps, the death camps and the treatment of Jews. That feeling is only reinforced when I go to the Imperial War Museum’s holocaust galleries. If anyone has not done so, I commend them doing so. One only need go there, or look at the online material on the education side, to be reminded that the purpose is, as set out by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, that we should know what was happening when those who survived are no longer with us. There was no intention in the Holocaust Commission report to the Government and there was no intention with the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation in September 2015 that the memorial had to be up before holocaust survivors had died. That is a later creation and justification, and some regard it as pretty weak.

I think it was 4 November 1952—it was; I looked it up, as I could not remember—when aged eight I first stood outside the Victoria Tower and went into Victoria Tower Gardens after the Queen went to her first state opening of Parliament the year before her coronation. I have lived in this area for 35 years, I have worked here for 47 or 48 years and I was educated here for seven years. Together—some of those years overlap—I think I am probably one of the longest lasting people to have been aware of Victoria Tower Gardens as a quiet place where the local population, those who work here and visitors can enjoy the surroundings.

I have a home here, so people can say I have a vested interest. I have also got a vested interest in having proper education about the holocaust. Since this process started, one of my cousins has established what we knew vaguely, which is that more than 100 of my grandfather’s cousins died during the holocaust. I do not regard myself as Jewish—I regard myself as Christian—but I am proud to be associated with what they went through, which I know is possibly still happening now around the world, whether that is in Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia or Srebrenica. We are not going to stop holocausts by where our memorial is. It is right that we should have one, but the education side matters.

The Holocaust Commission recommended, and the then Prime Minister accepted, that there should be an endowment fund for education. In the years since, that has not happened. We then go to the Government’s commitment that, if the voluntary side can raise £25 million, they will put in £50 million. The Government have now raised that to £75 million. The majority of the money should be spent on education, as set down by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. That has not happened.

The principle of this Bill—here I disagree with the Government—is not clause 2 as well as clause 1, but clause 1; it is regularising future payments. The earlier payments, which amount to well over £17 million so far, have been paid under common law. It is right and necessary that there should now be legislative authority for the Government to spend more and that is why I do not oppose clause 1.

If we go to clause 2, we come to the reasons that I tabled my reasoned amendment. I should say to the Front Benchers that I do not propose to push my reasoned amendment to a vote. A reasoned amendment, to be acceptable for the Order Paper, needs in effect to kill the Bill, and I am not trying to kill clause 1. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for supporting the reasoned amendment, as I know do many others.

Page 10 of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s proposal for a memorial and learning centre illustrates the acceptable area of central London. It goes from the west of Regent’s Park to Spitalfields in the east and down to Victoria Tower gardens.

I interrupt my flow to say that the inspector, who took over consideration of the planning application by the Secretary of State—this is a planning application by a Secretary of State, albeit one of the previous Secretaries of State—said that he would not be able to consider the Imperial War Museum’s proposals because they were not detailed. I do not think I am giving away any secrets in saying that the Imperial War Museum was told not to provide detailed proposals to the Government’s call for where the site should be and what should be there. The Government are responsible for allowing the inspector to come to that perverse decision that alternatives should not be considered.

The Government, through their foundation—for the foundation is an arm of Government—said, “Where should it be?” Fifty places were put forward and one person—albeit the then chairman of the Conservative party—wrote to a Conservative Minister to say, “Have you thought about Victoria Tower gardens? Perhaps the learning centre could be at Millbank.” The Government later decided that they would put the learning centre and memorial together in this very small royal park, thereby wrecking it.

I say this, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and to the country. If the Government continue with their proposals, they know that there will be a four-year construction programme after permission eventually gets through the Houses of Parliament and the Secretary of State’s junior Minister—I will say his colleague Minister, to put it politely—makes a decision, independently of the Secretary of State as the applicant. That will take, say, another nine months in Parliament. We are talking five years from now, so that takes us to at least 2028—people talk about 2027, but that is unrealistic—for a proposal made in September 2015. If it is important that holocaust survivors can be there for the memorial’s opening, we should not be continuing with this process. Indeed, it is not the one that we should have started with.

I make this proposal to the Secretary of State and the Government: why not have a competition for an alternative memorial by itself? The learning centre can come later; survivors do not need to be waiting for the learning centre. It should be a proper memorial—preferably not the one rejected in Ottawa, which is essentially what we have adopted; although the fins may have changed slightly, it has the same number of fins and the same interpretation—that could be put up in Whitehall, in Parliament Square or on College Green across the road from Parliament. Then, once the education centre at the north end of Victoria Tower gardens is gone, it can be placed there.

We know that space in Victoria Tower gardens will be needed for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster—I doubt that Parliament Square will be used for that—and we know that memorials can be moved, because the Buxton memorial was moved from Parliament Square to Victoria Tower gardens. We could have a competition for a memorial to be created for less than £20 million and to be erected within two years. We could have the opening ceremony with holocaust survivors there, and then later the memorial could be moved to wherever people chose. That would not be a rush, but it would be three years faster than the current proposal.

The Government are stuck on a course that any sensible person could have diverted them from at any stage. I invite the Secretary of State to ask the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation to have a roundtable with him, me, Baroness Deech, holocaust survivors and others who are interested from the local community—including the Thorney Island Society, of which I am a member, and London Parks & Gardens—so that rather than shout at each other in public, we discuss the issues together. Suppose that we set the object of establishing, at reasonable cost, a memorial that would open within two years as an alternative to this process? I am not saying that we should stop the process straightaway; they could run in parallel and then we could have the option between my proposal and what the Government appear to be committed to.

I commend the House of Commons Library’s good briefing on this saga. It is pretty comprehensive, although in my view it does not give quite enough attention to the September 2015 specifications. Let us remember what they were. One was that the local authority would approve the plan. Westminster City Council was not going to do so, and that is why a former Secretary of State took the decision away from the council. There was consultation with local people, who overwhelmingly and rationally argued against putting the memorial in Victoria Tower gardens, and especially having this tank of a learning centre associated with it.

After that, either the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation or the Government—I cannot remember which—got a firm to go and stand outside asking, “Would you like to have a holocaust memorial?” A load people put a tick, as many people in the establishment have to this proposal. It was not argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) could probably give more evidence if she chose to. That was bogus and irrational. Then, we come to the planning process, which I do not want to go into.

To those who think the way I do, in whole or in part, I commend not voting against Second Reading, but not voting for it. That will show that the Government have not been able to establish large numbers of people in support of it. We will have a separate debate on the instruction, and I will invite colleagues to vote with me on that. When we come to it, I will argue more about the hybridity.

I am probably the only person in the Chamber who was present when Michael Heseltine conducted the Labour Back Benchers as they sang “The Red Flag”. Something peculiar had happened in the votes on the hybridity of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which had been classified by the Speaker as hybrid. The then Labour Government put down a motion disregarding that. There was a draw on the first vote, so the Speaker left things the way they were. On the second vote, when the Speaker would have pushed things backwards had there been a draw, the then Government managed to create one more vote in their favour, which led to a degree of uproar. Speaker George Thomas—Viscount Tonypandy—dealt with that quite effectively when it came back to the Chair, then suspended the House and let the apologies come the following day.

That hybridity issue caused embarrassment to the Government. This one does too. When the hybridity was announced, the Government claimed that they were pleased, but they had spent all their time in the weeks before arguing against it being hybrid. It is hybrid because it affects other people’s interests. When it comes to the instruction, I will go into more detail, but now I want to say, in friendship to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that he should try the alternative process in parallel. In private or in public, he should say that if we now want the memorial very close to Westminster, which “we”—I say that in quotation marks—did not in September 2015, and if we want it open before the last holocaust survivors die, that will not happen in the next five years under the present plans. He should think of an alternative, and compare the merits of both.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Ayes were 373 and the Noes were 28, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm the rules regarding declarations of interest? If a Member has a declaration of interest on the register, should they not refer to it when they stand up and take part in debates in this House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is up to each individual Member to determine whether their declaration of interest should be made during a debate. Clearly, processes are available should a Member not do so and other Members believe that they should have.

[Mr Clarke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that no such interest exists, despite desperate attempts to insinuate to the contrary.

Who speaks for the Labour party in this debate? We have the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), clear that she is making no allegations, but we had the hon. Member for Middlesbrough making very pointed, very serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing. There is a yawning gulf between the two.

The next key point I wish to raise is about the process that the Government have adopted to set up the independent investigation that has been announced this afternoon. As the Minister set out very clearly at the Dispatch Box, that is the legal structure for investigating when a best-value investigation is triggered. The irony here, of course, is that the civil service does not believe that that threshold has been met and has advised Ministers to that effect. [Interruption.] I have spoken to Ministers about this point and, as Ministers have made clear, that is the case. It is not Ministers asserting that this threshold has not been met: the civil service does not believe that that standard has been met.

As both the former Secretary of State and the former Minister of State for Local Government, I can say with total assurance that this process is normal and straightforward. In his letter to Ben Houchen a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State set out why one would not want to seek to extend the remit of the NAO in the way that is being proposed. We have the long-standing, Labour-instigated system of commissioning these independent inquiries under the Local Government Act 1999. The key point here, of course, is that it is not just public confidence but investor confidence that is being undermined by the Labour party. It is doubly ironic, therefore, that we have never seen Labour calling for a similar process anywhere else— as we heard from the Minister, not even in Labour-run Liverpool when actual criminal wrongdoing had taken place. To add insult to injury, was the Labour party’s own investigation into its people’s conduct in Liverpool independently led? No: it was investigated by one of Labour’s own former MPs and a former council leader.

So we return to the purpose of this campaign—this vendetta. It is an attempt to systematically smear Ben Houchen, destroy Teesworks and make Teesside poorer. We have seen this movie before: earlier this year, not one but two independent reviews led by some of the most eminent scientists in the country thoroughly rebutted the idea that marine deaths were anything to do with the dredging at Teesworks, but just moments ago, we heard the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) again dredging up those allegations—you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—knowing full well that they are baseless. Labour will seize on any excuse and take any chance to try to talk down my region. I am sick to death of it, and so are the people of Teesside, because it is not in the public interest: it is in the Labour party’s interest. That is why Labour pursues these wrecking campaigns.

Teesside has been rescued from a cycle of secular decline with some bold leadership and private sector investment, and the public back it. That is why, in 2021, Ben Houchen received 73% of the vote to carry on with his mission. I ask shadow Front Benchers to confirm whether they will respect the impartiality of the senior officials from the local government family who have now been tasked with conducting this investigation, and I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to confirm that in his speech, too. If they do not respect the integrity and impartiality of those officials, why do they not do so? What is wrong with the investigation that has been instigated this afternoon?

I directly challenge the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on this point, too—if it is established by that inquiry that his allegations of “industrial-scale corruption” are baseless, as I firmly believe them to be, will he come to this House and withdraw the allegations that he has made here? If he does not, it will amount to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary privilege that I can conceive of, and I believe that he should be ordered to this House by Mr Speaker in the event that he declines to do so.

This is a cynical, shameless, seedy attempt to talk down Teesside, to imply wrongdoing and to damage the interests of the very deprived communities that I am proud to represent. I look forward to the report of the independent inquiry. I will be voting against Labour’s motion today. It is time to draw a line in the sand against this game playing by the Labour party. Labour Members have done it before—they have done it on the crabs, they have done it with the Teesside police and crime commissioner, and they have done it to the former Mayor of Middlesbrough. They know full well what they are doing. They abuse this place to make allegations, rely on others to amplify them outside and then feed off the clouds of suspicion and miasma of doubt that they create. All they have to offer is slander, negativity and decline—all the hallmarks of their toxic legacy on Teesside. Enough.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are seven Members wanting to take part in the debate, and we are going to do wind-ups of 10 minutes each. As the House can see, we have just under an hour for those seven Members. If people can focus their contributions so that everybody can get equal time, that would be really good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I work out that if people keep to roughly eight minutes or so, everybody will get a fair go.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

As a Tees Valley MP, I am pleased to speak in this debate that is so relevant to many of my constituents. I have to admit that I am baffled by the Opposition’s choice of motion for the debate. If I were them, the last thing that I would want to do is spend hours discussing the lack of investment in the north-east by a previous Labour Government. It is only under a Conservative Government that we have started levelling up. The Opposition’s demand for the National Audit Office to investigate is also surprising, given their resounding silence when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) ordered an inquiry into Liverpool, where actual corruption was taking place.

Labour has 17 Opposition days, which are meant to be used to discuss important issues, yet it has chosen to use today to throw mud at a successful levelling-up story. Labour could have used today to address the country’s priorities, which the Prime Minister set out in his five pledges. It could have talked about halving inflation, which has started to fall. It could have talked about economic growth, as recession is likely to be avoided: the OECD predicts growth of 0.3% this year and 1% next year. It could have talked about falling national debt, with borrowing forecast to fall every year according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It could have talked about reducing waiting lists. The figure for patients waiting over 18 months peaked in September 2021 at 125,000; in March this year, it was 10,737. Labour could have talked about stopping small boats. Compared with last year, crossings are down by 20%.

Has Labour chosen any of those subjects or talked about any of its own plans? No. Could that be because the news from the shadow Chancellor is that she wants to avoid unfunded spending commitments? Well, that would mean that Labour Members would have nothing to say. Could it be that even their supportive unions call their policies naive and say that they lack intellectual rigour and thinking? Where does that leave Labour? Back to the mudslinging and talking down places like the north-east.

I am sorry, but I am proud of the Conservative-led transition of the Tees Valley. Teesworks is an excellent example of an industrial area that was neglected until a Conservative politician, Ben Houchen, came along and decided to do something about it. I remind the Chamber that doing nothing with the steelworks would not have been a neutral act, either. Even standing idle, it cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds every week, while in 2015 unions warned that clearing the site to repurpose it for housing or industrial developments would cost as much as £1 billion.

The site required so much work to become usable again that its value was in the negative hundreds of millions. Until recently, the joint venture appeared to have a level of cross-party support among local politicians. For example, the Labour leader of Stockton Council voted for it, and the independent leaders of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland all approved it. A wide range of people and organisations in both the private and public sectors have been involved in the development of Teesworks, which is another reason why I find it difficult to believe that there could be some alleged secret tie-up to swindle taxpayers, as seems to be suggested.

It remains a clear and obvious fact that although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alleges industrial-scale corruption when he is in this place and enjoying the protection of parliamentary privilege, despite many requests he has declined to repeat those allegations where he would have to defend them. Can I also remind him that another great success story in the Tees Valley is the resurgence of Teesside airport, driven again by the Tees Valley Mayor, after its almost total demise under the control of Labour-led councils prior to his election? The airport is now enjoying further growth in both passenger numbers and as part of the Tees Valley freeport, delivering economic growth and employment.

We have already seen remarkable progress as a result of the joint venture partnership, including the demolition plan that is two years ahead of schedule. Less than £250 million of public money has been invested in the site, yet it has already secured over £2 billion-worth of private sector investment. I must also mention in passing the 2,750 long-term jobs that are being created through this project. Job creation is always appreciated, but it is all the more important in this case, where 1,700 jobs were lost with the closure of the steelworks. Now that the site is doing well, Labour has decided to use it as another opportunity to talk down the north. Considering this was the first mayoral development corporation outside London, I think the record is pretty good.

The motion is about accountability and scrutiny of Teesworks, so we ought to note that Teesworks is double audited by Mazars and Azets, whose audit is then further audited by Mazars. Surely, if corrupt or illegal decisions had been taken, they would have been spotted by at least one of the accountancy firms, rather than going unnoticed? The Mayor, as has been said, requested that the National Audit Office become involved as a result of the accusations, but the Secretary of State decided that a more appropriate step would be to commission an independent review to consider the specific allegations.

As an aside, facts are always facts. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) alleged that—[Interruption]—Martin Corney’s son, sorry, had benefited. That is just incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and correct the record, that is a choice for him to make. Silence.

The Secretary of State’s determination was that it would be inappropriate for the NAO to examine individual local government bodies. The fact that the Mayor requested NAO engagement would strongly support his contention that there is genuinely no corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.

I am disappointed that the Labour motion wastes parliamentary time and once again attempts to talk down progress in the north-east. It reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition, when it was announced that the Treasury was coming to Darlington, stating that it was not levelling up, it was giving up. With the success of Teesworks, Teesside airport, the Darlington Economic Campus and so on and so on, I for one am proud of what the Conservatives are doing to level up the Tees Valley. I hope that when we get a north-east mayor for the LA7, they will also be a Conservative and deliver in the same way that Ben Houchen has delivered, meaning that all my Sedgefield constituents can be as well served as that portion who reside in the Tees Valley.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That was under eight minutes, so thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I said earlier, the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm. Four Members are trying to catch my eye, so according to my maths, they have just over five minutes each if they want to use equal amounts of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will start at 20 minutes to 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Is she aware that the position of Middlesbrough Council was to say, “Give us the money, don’t give it to yet another self-appointed board under the tutelage of Ben Houchen”? Is she as amazed as I am that Ben Houchen has deliberately excluded PD Ports, the biggest employer and investor in the territory, from the consultation process? Does she not find that ridiculous?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just before the hon. Lady responds, let me remind her that there is one more speaker to get in before 6.40 pm.

[Ashley Dalton]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he has added enlightens us all and adds a lot to this debate.

As I have said, the current Tees Valley Mayor is apparently trusted deeply by the Secretary of State to work with mayoral development corporations, so why does the Secretary of State reject the Mayor’s request for a National Audit Office inquiry in favour of a panel, handpicked by the Secretary of State, with a remit, scope and authority hurriedly thrashed out fewer than 10 minutes before this debate began and which, by the sound of it, is not approaching adequate?

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and cannot speak highly enough of the National Audit Office. Perhaps the NAO has indicated that it could not, or should not undertake an inquiry into Teesworks. But not so: the NAO has said that it is able and willing to undertake such an inquiry. We can assume then that the NAO sees no problem with it being tasked to do so, from the perspective of its remit, its expertise or its capacity.

[Ashley Dalton]

I will not give way as I am nearly done.

When it comes to the spending of public money and the transfer of public assets into private ownership, it is not just the decisions made that cause concern among communities; it is also when those decisions appear to be made in the dark behind closed doors and without transparency. That is when people start to feel suspicious.

Therefore, to help me, others on the Labour Benches and the people of Teesside understand the Secretary of State’s decision to reject the request of the Tees Valley Mayor, to decline the offer of the NAO and to set up a new panel from scratch, I invite the Secretary of State, assuming he is listening, to share his thinking, take the lid off decision making in Teesside and show the taxpayers of this country the respect and courtesy of an independent transparent inquiry that they can trust.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Matt Western and ask him to resume his seat at 6.40 pm.

Leasehold Reform

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Eighteen Members are trying to catch my eye, so please keep to seven minutes or so. I want to start the wind-ups no later than 4.10 pm, with 10 minutes each for the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Like many across the Chamber today, I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents in the north-west of England in Weaver Vale and the 4.86 million people trapped in this leasehold system. It is an antiquated and unjust feudal system, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) from the Front Bench and by the Minister, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is not in his place at the moment. The system is unique to England and Wales. Ministers are keen to portray the Government as being outriders on a global scale, but maintaining feudalism and serfdom is surely no badge of honour and will have electoral consequences.

In 2017, I was not long elected as a Labour MP and a constituent from Northwich came along to my surgery and informed me about this strange system called leasehold, with ever-increasing ground rents, obscure service charges—also ever-increasing—incomplete unadopted roads, as Members have referred to, and strange administration charges for pets, extensions, alterations and for-sale signs. They could not sell their properties. I literally thought that she was making it up, until I had a conversation with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and others. I soon came to realise that this archaic system of leasehold was allowing developers, freeholders, managing agents, solicitors and insurers to make things up and put things up on an industrial scale.

Talking of an industrial scale, I also discovered that there are solicitors in cahoots with major developers, as has been referred to, offering no real choice and mis-selling leasehold houses as freehold. There is plenty of evidence of that, to which my neighbour the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has referred.

It does not stop. On Friday just gone, my constituent Christine came to see me and put considerable evidence under my nose of the continued legalised crookery—I will use that word that the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) used. It is an absolute fraud of a system, with unexplainable and increasing levels of service charge and insurance premiums, dodgy invoices and a plethora of commissions, seemingly for everybody.

Despite a plethora of consultations, grand promises made recently and a short piece of legislation with a narrow scope, new homes to this day are being built and sold as leasehold. The provisions on ground rent going forward are not for the many, just the new. One bad apple was picked from the tree, but the orchard still stares our constituents and residents in the face on a daily basis. The previous Secretary of State promised that legislation was a starter before “the main course”. As shadow Housing Minister at the time, I argued that it was about time to kick this issue into the history books and that leaseholders needed

“an all-you-can-eat buffet of reform”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 796.]

They are still waiting and we are still frustrated.

We all know that it is time to put an end to this outdated practice, to usher in a new era of fairness and to protect the rights of every citizen in our great nations of England and Wales and their aspiration to genuinely own their own home. Leasehold is not home ownership. Let us kick it into the history books.

It is shocking that the Government now seem to be backtracking on their commitment to legislate effectively to put this feudal system into the history books. When I asked the Secretary of State in this very Chamber if he would legislate in the King’s Speech to remove leasehold, he replied, “Yes, that’s the plan.” It looks like that plan has caved in to vested interests. If anybody wants to look at some vested interests, go to the Electoral Commission website and look at where the donations of the governing party come from. I suggest that gives us a little bit of evidence.

This feudal leasehold, a relic of a bygone era, holds its grip on the dreams and aspirations of countless homeowners in England and Wales. It is a system that not only shackles their aspirations, but perpetuates an unjust power dynamic between freeholder landlords and leaseholders. The practice, unique to England and Wales, has no place in a society of modern values such as equality, justice and the empowerment of British citizens—or should I say, of English and Welsh citizens.

This U-turn by the Government is a complete betrayal, and they cannot escape that. Under this feudal leasehold system, homeowners find themselves trapped in a cycle of perpetual dependence, being subject to exorbitant ground rents, unreasonable service charges and ever-increasing lease extension costs. The impact of this feudal leasehold system is not, of course, limited to financial burdens alone. It breeds uncertainty and anxiety among homeowners, who live in constant fear of losing their home or facing arbitrary restrictions imposed on them by landlords. Let us not forget that, despite promises and legislation, the costs of the building safety crisis still fall on the shoulders of leaseholders, who cannot escape that injustice.

The time for change is upon us. We must collectively seize this opportunity to consign this feudal leasehold system to the history books. We have a moral duty to ensure that every citizen gets to own their own home and to control their own home, without fear or undue financial burden. To achieve this, the Government must take bold and decisive action. The Law Commission recommendations should be implemented in full. They should take heed of the Select Committee reports—the successive ones—and they must provide existing leaseholders with a clear pathway to enfranchisement, enabling them to convert their leases into freehold ownership at fair and reasonable prices. Marriage value must be scrapped, and Ministers must place restrictions and limitations on current ground rents and service charges, ensuring that they are reasonable, transparent and reflective of the services provided. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has mentioned, how about a housing court to deal with the several issues we have spoken about? Commonhold needs to be powered up to become the default tenure.

My esteemed colleagues across the House, it is time to end this feudal system. Let us see this piece of legislation in the King’s Speech, and if it does not come, the Government should step aside, and the Labour party will deliver with a Labour Government in charge.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Ruth Cadbury.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has been a long day.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Oh, it has, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a long week—and it is only Tuesday.

It is over six years since I first spoke about the issues facing leaseholders in this House, and these issues have only got worse for so many of my constituents. They are compounded, of course, by the consequences of the fire safety scandal that the Grenfell fire exposed. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many of the issues that provide a significant proportion of our casework and take up the time of our staff. I particularly thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for the advice and support it have given us and our constituents.

Reform is needed because, for so many living in my constituency, leasehold is the only way that most first-time buyers can get a foot on the housing ladder: 50% of all residential property purchases in London in 2021 were leasehold. The huge deposit and mortgage needed for a traditional two-up, two-down house in London, particularly in my west London constituency, coupled with the spike in mortgage costs, have now made it virtually impossible for families to buy a freehold home. This means that middle-income people and even those who many would call high-income people are pushed into buying a leasehold flat. Some young people—including many NHS workers, teachers and many more—can just about afford to go into shared ownership, but in my experience that is a particularly perverse form of leasehold.

Imagine how it must feel for a young couple, who have worked hard and saved up, when they buy their first flat. They get the keys and they are filled with joy, but then the problems first appear. They notice some antisocial behaviour, and they notice the failure of the managing agent to ensure the car park is properly secure. They report it, but nothing happens. Then they get a bill for the service charge, and it has more than doubled, plus it is not itemised. They are already struggling with the cost of the weekly shop, and then they are hit with another charge. They ask why the service charge has gone up, especially when standards in their block remain so low, and they do not get an answer. Then they find out that, in six months’ time, their share of the building insurance will go up not by 10% or 50%, but by over 200%. Where are they supposed to find this money? Imagine how it would feel with this constant hammer blow after hammer blow, and the dream of home ownership rapidly turning into a nightmare.

What I have described is one example from my constituency, but the many examples show that the central thread running through the existing leasehold system is the lack of power for leaseholders—the David against Goliath nature of the battle. Just last week, I met leaseholders in Aplin Way in Isleworth, who are facing an astronomical bill to replace the lifts in their block. It is 50 years old, so the lifts do need replacing. They have asked why it is costing so much when cheaper options are available, but they have not had a clear answer from, in this case, the housing association that owns the block. Their ward councillor, Tony Louki, and I have tried to seek answers, but even we have not had replies to our correspondence. After no response had been received, suddenly last week the contractors appeared on site. The leaseholders know they will soon be forced to pay their share of the astronomical bill, and this is causing particular stress to the many pensioners who own their own home in that block.

Being a leaseholder in this country is increasingly like trying to push an ever larger boulder up an ever steeper hill. The central point of frustration is the fact that leaseholders are being ripped off. They are paying eye-watering amounts every year, yet in many cases they do not know where the money is going. There is no transparency.

One particular case is at APT Parkview in Brentford, where there is a mix of leaseholders and tenants of the building owner. Leaseholders have seen their communal services keep rising in price, but then suddenly stop after they made complaints about their bills. One day there was no concierge, the gym was closed, there was no cleaning of the common parts and no security in the car park, but then there was a sudden extra charge for air conditioning on top of their existing rising energy bills. The case of APT Parkview has also shown the lack of enforcement action available to protect leaseholders. The council could not help, the powers of the ward councillors are limited, and when I wrote letters and raised the issues on the Floor of this House, they were still not resolved. The tenants in the block sought legal advice, and it appears that they have somewhat stronger rights than the leaseholders.

Another frequent offender in my constituency, although it is an issue across the country, has been FirstPort—it has been mentioned today. It regularly hiked up building insurance and service charges while ignoring the complaints and concerns that residents had about communal areas. Often it did not carry out the services for which people were supposed to be paying. Liam Spender, a committed campaigner on leasehold reform, recently took FirstPort to tribunal and won. David beat Goliath, and FirstPort had to pay back at least £479,000 in overpaid service charges to all leaseholders in the block. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, such problems have been compounded by the fallout from the Grenfell fire and the Government’s foot-dragging on that issue.

With leasehold, one never owns one’s own home but merely has the right to occupy it, and to sell that right for the remainder of the lease. It is not ideal, but historically it was a stable, normal type of home ownership that provided homes for many millions of people. Over the last no more than 20 years, we have seen the growth of what can only be called scams on the leasehold system, effectively monetising that system for profit, often offshore profit. Such scams include the extensive sale of freehold houses, extortionate service charges, the ground rent scandal, and developers selling the freehold from under leasehold flat owners, who were promised when their bought the lease that they would have the chance to buy that freehold. Then there are the close and unethical links between developers, freeholders, solicitors and managing agents. Scammers held conferences to network and share best—perhaps I should say worst—practice on how to exploit the glaring gaps in our leasehold system. We can plug some of the gaps, particularly for the benefit of existing leaseholders, but the only way to stop future exploitation is to replace private leasehold with commonhold.

The Secretary of State promised to reform leasehold and called it an

“unfair form of property ownership”.

Those of us speaking today agree with that, but where are the widespread reforms? Have plans been watered down by the Prime Minister? If so, that is no surprise from a Prime Minister who is out of touch with the reality facing leaseholders across the country, who does not understand the strain and stresses facing ordinary hard-working people who are trying to keep their home, and who is out of touch about the very country he is apparently running.

I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) have committed that a Labour Government would do what the Conservatives are too weak and out of touch to do, which is end the sale of new private leasehold houses, grant residents greater power over the management of their own home, and crack down on unfair fees, with the right to challenge those rip-off fees. I am pleased that Labour has committed to the Law Commission’s recommendations to make it easier to convert leasehold to commonhold, because for so many of my constituents, leasehold has turned into fleecehold.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind everyone that those who have contributed to the debate will be expected to attend the wind-ups, which will begin no later than 20 minutes to 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are down to our last two Back-Bench contributions, so those watching in their offices who participated in this debate should now come back to the Chamber in anticipation of the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has given a tax break to some of the wealthiest people in society by scrapping the £1.07 million lifetime pensions allowance. We need to retain people in the NHS, but there are other ways of doing that. Let us see what he has done for the rest of society. At the same time, he has frozen personal income tax thresholds until 2028. The OBR has said that as a result wage growth over the next five years will force 3.2 million people into paying tax for the first time and put 2.1 million people into the higher rate tax band. The IFS has said that the freeze would cost most basic rate taxpayers £500 from April and most higher rate payers £1,000.

It is difficult to see how that will not have an impact on child poverty. Alison Garnham, the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, has pointed out that the Budget contained

“no mention of the UK’s 4 million children in poverty”.

She called on the Government to

“expand free school meals eligibility, remove the two-child limit and benefit cap and increase child benefit. Any less and the effects of poverty will stalk millions of children from cradle to grave.”

While giving tax breaks for the very wealthy, the Chancellor announced that sanctions in the social security system would be

“applied more rigorously to those who fail to meet strict work search requirements or choose not to take up a reasonable job offer.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 844.]

So people who struggle to read and write will be punished, because for them a work search is a difficult business. Furthermore, that announcement came just a day after it was reported that the Department for Work and Pensions had been ordered to release sensitive research into whether fining benefit claimants is effective in getting them to take a job or work more hours. There is overwhelming evidence in academic research, through the welfare conditionality project, to show that benefit sanctions are ineffective at getting people who do not have jobs into work and that they are more likely to reduce those affected to poverty, ill health or even survival crime.

Speaking of those who struggle to read and write, once gain the Government have failed to provide the urgent support that is needed to the 7.1 million adults in England who are deemed functionally illiterate and who face immense barriers in life. They make up more than 16% of the adult population, yet it seems that this Government have abandoned them. The Chancellor announced the introduction of returnerships and I will be interested to see the content of those. However, they are specifically vocational and, for many people who are functionally illiterate, the idea of going straight to a vocational course can be daunting; and, of course, illiteracy is not only about barriers to work.

Over 13 years of Conservative Government, we have seen public services cut to the bone, and public sector workers and the public they serve bearing the brunt of that ill-conceived austerity. Headteachers in Wirral whom I met earlier in the year spoke of the acute financial challenges they are facing in terms of paying staff, buying resources and heating their buildings. We also know that, according to the Government, across the country, the risk of collapse in one or more blocks in some schools built between 1945 and 1970 is now very likely. All this reminds me very much of the final years of the Thatcher Government, when public services were left in ruin.

In conclusion, this Budget sidestepped the most pressing issues, including the cost of living crisis that is causing misery to millions; the running down of public services; and the failure to support more than 16% of the adult population by providing them with much-needed support to read and write.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come to the wind-ups.

Building Safety

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Members can see how many are standing to be called. As I said, we are likely to sit beyond midnight tonight, so I ask Members please to focus.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am a leaseholder without any problems. In 2002, 20 years ago, Parliament and the Labour Government passed leasehold and commonhold reform, but the commonhold bit did not work.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that the House will manage to pass the Law Commission’s proposals on the reform of leasehold and commonhold and that we will be able to make progress. Incidentally, that would make the value of leasehold properties higher and the revenue would in part go to the Treasury, so his colleagues in government should be helping him to get this legislation brought to Parliament, not hindering it.

I also welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced on commissions. Can he find a way of ensuring that leaseholders who pay for buildings insurance become a party to the insurance policy, so that when things go wrong they can appeal to the insurance ombudsman and not be cut out because they are only paying and do not own the bricks?

Those responsible for the defects all had insurers, including the developers, architects, surveyors, component manufacturers, building control and, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Government in setting standards. I suggest that he re-engage with the insurance industry, because if people can take over the claims from those who have had losses—including the leaseholders and, for that matter, some of the landlords—and have a class action, the insurers will have to contribute significantly more than they are at the moment. There is much more progress to be made, so will he and his colleagues ensure that they carry on listening to the leaseholders and their representatives, and hopefully, in time, to the representatives of commonholders too?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please can I ask everyone to focus on asking single questions? Otherwise, it will be well after 1 o’clock before we get on to the Adjournment debate tonight.

[Michael Gove]

Leaseholders have no better champion in this House than the Father of the House, and we absolutely will proceed along the lines that the Law Commission has outlined. I know that colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury will appreciate the benefits that will accrue to the whole national economy through reform. The points that my hon. Friend makes about the insurance sector are well made, totally understood and will be acted on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more. I will ask Sue Gray, the second permanent secretary at my Department, to be in touch with the Department for Communities this week. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) with an update on the progress that we expect to make.

May I apologise to the House for referring to the Queen’s Speech, when I should, of course, have referred to the King’s Speech?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to multiple questions.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for securing this debate.

Nobel laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel famously said

“whoever listens to a witness becomes a witness”.

Seventy-eight years on from the liberation of the former Nazi extermination and concentrations camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, as we gather here today to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, those words could not be more important.

As a society, we have taken the incredible work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust for granted. The trust and its incredible staff have worked day in and day out for the past 30 years to ensure that as many people as possible have the honour of being able to sit in awe and listen to a holocaust survivor tell their testimony. Today, through the Holocaust Educational Trust’s annual webcast, tens of thousands of schoolchildren from across the country logged on to hear the testimony of holocaust survivor Ruth Posner BEM.

It is sad but true that we are the last generations who will know the holocaust not as a historical period but as something that happened to someone we met or knew. With holocaust survivors now in their 80s and 90s, we, the people who have heard their testimony, have become their witness. We must now carry the mantle of continuing their legacy.

If holocaust denial and distortion can thrive when there are survivors as proof, what will happen when there are none? If antisemitism and hatred can thrive even while survivors warn where it can lead, what will happen when there are none? And when individuals say that Jewish people should not have their own homeland, when survivors are still retelling how no other country would accept them, what will happen when there are none?

In the past month, we have seen the release of two shocking reports. First, two weeks ago, the Tuck report on antisemitism in the National Union of Students found that it was a hostile environment for Jewish students. I have heard stories from my Jewish staffer of what he and his friends experienced at NUS conferences, and it is truly shocking. Secondly, just last week, we received the campus antisemitism report from the Community Security Trust, which found that antisemitism at UK universities has risen by 22% to its highest recorded total. Put simply, Jewish students on UK campuses are receiving death threats and abuse while the National Union of Students, their supposed representative, invites an accused antisemitic rapper to its conferences. How can the Jewish community hope for a better future when this is what its children are having to put up with?

I pause to recognise the amazing work of the Community Security Trust and the Union of Jewish Students, which are on the ground at universities to protect and represent Jewish students. I also thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust and declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG against antisemitism. Sadly, the work they do only becomes more important as time goes on.

I was recently at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and saw a Nazi-era antisemitic book that is currently on sale online. Just last year, we were reminded again that antisemitism is alive and kicking thanks to Kanye West, the now disgraced rapper turned Hitler fan. There is nothing cool, and certainly nothing acceptable, about that. I live in hope that, one day, he might realise that. He has more followers on social media than there are Jews in the world, which puts this debate starkly into context.

The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is ordinary people. It is strange to use the word “ordinary” in the same sentence as the word “holocaust.” There is nothing ordinary about the unprecedented attempt to murder all European Jews and to extinguish their culture, history and traditions. This cannot be ordinary, yet the holocaust was only possible because ordinary people did not speak up when hatred was taking over.

It was ordinary people who met at the Wannsee conference to discuss the need for the final solution, which is the term given to the extermination of the Jewish population. It was ordinary people who rounded up the Jews of Europe and forced them into ghettos. It was ordinary people who drove the trains on their journey to the camps. It was ordinary people who thought of their work at death camps as just that—nothing more than work. They would finish their shift and go home to their families and children, who often lived just a few hundred metres away from the camp perimeter. Most importantly, it was ordinary Jewish people who had their humanity stripped away for the crime of being Jewish.

As the late Rabbi Lord Sacks said:

“Jews were hated in Germany because they were rich and because they were poor, because they were capitalists and because they were communists, because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere, because they believed in a primitive faith and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing. Hitler believed that Jews were controlling both the United States and the Soviet Union. How could they be doing both? Because they were Jews.”

I end this speech by paying tribute to Zigi Shipper BEM, who sadly passed away last week. I am proud to be, as Elie Wiesel put it, his “witness.” I had the pleasure of meeting Zigi many times and I will never forget his charisma, strength and big smile, which he always had on display. I witnessed the eruption of applause when he finished delivering his testimony, having transported students in a school in London through time, painting a picture of the fragile child who was lucky to survive this all, not least the death march where he developed typhus. When he finished speaking, he was a legend, a mensch. He was one of the many capable of condensing the pain of those involved into a service to better the world. At the end, he was treated like a celebrity and he loved it. He high-fived all the students down the aisle of the hall on his way out, and those students will never forget it. I echo the words of his grandson, Darren Richman, who wrote:

“Shaping minds—in a very real sense—changing the world, and I have no doubt the world was a better place for having had Zigi in it.”

May his memory be a blessing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call our final Back-Bench speaker, Robin Walker.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I apologise to those Members whose speeches I may have missed, including the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who made his maiden speech. I congratulate him on that and look forward to reading it in Hansard. I was meeting a group of young people who have autism, and as we debate this issue of the holocaust it is striking to think that people we would now describe as neurodiverse were also victims of the holocaust.

As Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, I wanted to join so many Members who have spoken today, from so many parts of the House, in paying tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, as they make a profound difference in our schools. The work they do in bringing the testimony of survivors directly to children in schools is vital in informing our understanding of one of the most terrible examples of human behaviour in history, but it is so much more than that; it inspires an understanding not just of history—my subject at school and university—but of poetry, literature, music and so much more that children can benefit from. The work they have done to make sure that the voices of that generation of survivors that we are sadly now losing are perpetuated and protected for the future is essential, as we all recognise the importance of educating about the holocaust and dealing with the difficult issues it raises for the students of today.

The trips that those bodies have organised to take students directly to Auschwitz, to see for themselves the reality of the horror undertaken there, are also an important part of their work. In all our constituencies, up and down the country, events are taking place tomorrow that will bring together the pupils of today and the testimony of holocaust survivors, and civic and religious institutions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) said in his excellent opening speech, this is something that should matter to people of every religion and every community. It was fantastic to hear him speaking out in that way.

I wish to touch on a recent event we had in Worcester, which was a reminder that although the holocaust was a peak of the terrible antisemitism and mistreatment of Jewish people, it was not isolated in history as an incident of antisemitism, bias and appalling behaviour against them. We recently held an event to commemorate the expulsion of the Jews from Worcester in 13th-century England. We brought representatives of Jewish communities from across the midlands together in Worcester, at the site of the former Jewish ghetto, to unveil a plaque, and to hear a profound speech and an apology from the Bishop of Worcester for the role that the Church played in that incident. It is important to remember that context and the long history of antisemitism that built up to the terrible events of the holocaust.

Today there is a very small Jewish population in Worcester, but the lessons of the holocaust are relevant to everyone in my constituency. I am very proud that schools such as the King’s School Worcester, RGS Worcester, Christopher Whitehead Language College and Sixth Form, and Nunnery Wood High School, will be holding holocaust memorial events and engaging in that event with our university, with civic dignitaries at the Guildhall in Worcester, just a few hundred yards from where that Jewish ghetto stood.

I very much look forward to hearing from Mindu Hornick tomorrow. She is a holocaust survivor who will be addressing that group. In paying tribute to the many profound speeches that we have heard from all parts of the House, I think it is very welcome that the Government have made the commitment about the holocaust education centre sitting at the heart of our democracy. That will benefit generations of schoolchildren in the years to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I just want to say to those on the Front Bench that the small number of people who are taking part in the holocaust memorial service in Portcullis House will not be able to be here for the wind-ups. I know that they will understand exceptionally why that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. In the interest of giving my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove some time, I suggest that we sit down and talk about that following the debate.

We cannot allow one of the darkest chapters in history to be forgotten. I am reminded of the words of the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, who said in 1905:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Sajid Javid, may I say what an honour it is to have chaired this debate? I thank all hon. Members who have taken part. A few years ago, I went to Poland to visit Auschwitz. I cannot hear the haunting but brilliant theme music to “Schindler’s List” without reflecting on that visit and the possessions of those who had their lives brutally cut short in that concentration camp by acts of extraordinary evil. We remember them on Holocaust Memorial Day today, and we remember the extraordinary acts of courage of people who helped to defeat that regime and of people today who suffer at the hands of other rotten regimes around the world.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your powerful words. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her words on behalf of the Government about their continued strong commitment to fighting prejudice of all kinds, and especially for confirming to the House the desire to bring forward a holocaust memorial Bill as soon as possible. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his contribution. He showed, once again, that the whole House is united on the importance of what we have discussed today—of remembering the holocaust and subsequent genocides, and of learning from them.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members from every party and both sides of the House who have contributed today; we have truly shown the House at its best, with everyone united in calling for an even stronger fight against prejudice and hatred. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on his excellent maiden speech, which was one of the best that I have heard. It was delivered with real confidence and he spoke eloquently about his desire to fight hatred and prejudice. I wish him all the very best in the House.

Clearly reflected in all hon. Members’ contributions was the theme set by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust: the role of ordinary people in the holocaust and subsequent genocides. The 6 million people murdered in the holocaust and the millions murdered in subsequent genocides were ordinary people, but many of the people who facilitated and perpetrated those murders were also ordinary people who were somehow corrupted. We were reminded by hon. Members that that could happen again if we do not do everything we can to fight it.

Many hon. Members also rightly referred to the extraordinary people—the survivors—many of whom are thankfully still in our midst. As was said, however, with the passing of each survivor, we can see that the responsibility on all of us in this House grows. Having listened to this excellent debate, however, I am very hopeful for the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western). Although I did not hear his speech, it was clearly brilliant, given the tributes that he has received.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the abominable Windrush scandal, in which black Britons were detained, deported, denied healthcare, denied housing and denied education, successive Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries came to this House and said they would accept in full the recommendations of Wendy Williams’s inquiry into the scandal and that they would compensate the victims.

This morning, from a written statement slipped out quietly, this House finds out that in fact only half the compensation has been made and that Windrush recommendations have been dropped. This tramples on the hopes of the Windrush generation and anyone who believes in our shared multicultural future. Have you had any indication at all that the Home Secretary expects to come to this House and make a statement in full about why she has now decided to deny the hopes of the Windrush generation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Mr Lammy for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. As he knows, the next business I am going to take is the Adjournment of the House, so there will be no statement today and the House is not sitting tomorrow. However, I do ask that the Treasury Whip on duty ensures that Home Office Ministers are made absolutely aware of the point of order he has made.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mike Amesbury will be the last speaker on a five-minute limit. I will indicate whether the new limit is to be four or three minutes as soon as he has finished.

[Mike Amesbury]

I rise to speak to my amendments 97 and 98, to my new clause 111 and to other amendments that I support.

After 12 years of pursuing policies that have wrecked and hollowed out communities and deepened inequalities, this Tory Government now say that they are the ones to repair the damage and that the so-called levelling-up agenda is the way to do it. The Bill exposes levelling up as the empty promise that it is. It will not ensure that our planning system delivers for us, it will not provide the genuinely affordable housing we need, and it will not put investment and power back into communities and people’s pockets. In fact, the current Government are doing exactly the opposite.

I support several Labour Front-Bench amendments, including amendments 78 and 84 and new clause 98. This Parliament declared a climate emergency in 2019, so it is somewhat bizarre that, years later, mitigation and adaptation are not hardwired into our planning system. New clause 98, which would do just that, is welcome. As it stands, the Bill will create a power grab by the centre and by the Secretary of State, undermining the local plans and neighbourhood plans that Members across the House have spoken for so strongly in this debate, so I strongly support amendment 78. If we are to build communities with the right houses in the right places that are genuinely affordable, with essential infrastructure and beautiful green spaces, they must be sufficiently funded. That is not the case now, has not been the case for 12 years and will not be the case under the Bill, which is why I am backing amendment 84.

I turn to the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment 97, which is supported by the Local Government Association, would provide local authorities with the certainty that they need about how to administer the levy in relation to retrospective planning applications; the Bill does not currently make provision for that. Amendment 98 would ensure that all forms of provision delivered through section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including affordable housing, are not lost but continue to be delivered by the levy. Otherwise, important schemes that do not come under the definition of infrastructure, but are currently delivered through section 106—including apprenticeships, skills development, supporting the local workforce and supporting young people into employment—may be omitted. New clause 111 would have the same effect as new clause 94: by removing the clauses of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that relate to the sale of vacant higher-value local authority housing, it would hold the Government to a commitment that they made in the social housing Green Paper.

I also support amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Rightly, it would add childcare, either subsidised or free, to the definition of infrastructure. It is common sense, it is the right thing to do and I wholly support it.

My amendments and many others tabled by Members across the House seek to add some substance to a discredited and vacuous slogan: namely, “levelling up”. Over the past 12 years, communities such as mine have been hollowed out, with facilities from leisure centres to libraries closed down and our high streets boarded up. We need something radically different. In fact, what we need is a Labour Government who will empower our communities, genuinely power up our communities, and fill people’s pockets with the money and opportunities they deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be a four-minute time limit. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

Alongside purpose, a sense of pride nourishes personal and communal togetherness; it builds social solidarity. Where we begin, live life and end it roots our days and shapes our dreams. Homes matter because having a place of one’s own to build a family’s future makes those dreams come true. Those who advocate housing targets clinically miss the point. Making homes of which people can feel proud is what public policy must make possible.

The Government’s decision to drop mandatory housing targets, under which local communities have been obliged to endure seemingly endless and unsustainable development, is therefore wise and welcome, if overdue. I have been pleased to play my part, alongside other sensible colleagues, in encouraging that sharp turn in thinking. I am delighted that local communities and the councils they elect will no longer have housing imposed upon them. They will be in sole charge of what is built and where. Never again will the imposition of top-down targets be a justification for developments that are out of scale or character with the prevailing built environment or the local landscape. We have bolted on to villages and towns throughout this kingdom unsuitable and unsustainable housing estates of catalogue-build, identikit houses that bear no relation to the local vernacular and are, frankly, a very poor legacy to pass on to generations to come.

All that we build should make us proud. Our inheritance is what our forefathers built for us, and our responsibility is just as great as theirs. Development should, wherever possible, be regenerative, and it should be incremental. Every hamlet could take a few extra houses; every village could take more; towns many more than that; and cities, of course, many thousands. When we understand that development can be incremental, people will cease to object to it in the way they do currently.

There are those who dismiss beauty—they are crass to do so, because people deserve the chance to live in lovely places, including less well-off people. Unfortunately, that is too often not the case. I welcome the Government’s decision to put beauty at the heart of the housing agenda by raising design standards and making sure that developers and local planners adhere to those standards. It is also important that communities have their say. When they are faced with a choice between the ubiquitous kind of bland, identikit housing that peppers too much of our country or well-designed homes, they will usually choose the latter.

There is, however, concern about the industrialisation of the countryside resulting from the Government’s relaxation of the moratorium on onshore wind. It is critical that topography, visual impact, the connection to sites of special historical interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest, and the connection of turbines to the grid, are all taken into account. Not only is this a dangerous energy policy—I do not have time to explore that—but it also risks spoiling much of the English landscape and ruining vistas that are cherished by local people. If we really believe in local consent for housing, we must follow through and believe in local consent for that kind of infrastructure development, too.

As I have said, all that we build should add to what is there. We will be judged as a Parliament, and indeed as a generation, by what we pass on to generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree entirely that those regulations make it clear. It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), is not in her place, because she was a councillor with me in 2006 in Hammersmith and Fulham, where I, then charged with the community safety brief, used section 106 money in part to fund additional police officers in the town centres of that borough. There is precedent out there that we can use funds such as the predecessor to the infrastructure levy, to fund some level of revenue services. That is why I urge the Minister, when she sums up, to acknowledge that we can do that and be true localists, so that communities that determine that childcare provision is important are enabled to make those deals as part of their infrastructure levies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Margaret Greenwood is the last Member with four minutes, and then we will move to a three-minute limit.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Bill introduces national development management policies, or NDMPs, which will have primacy over local development plans, meaning that those plans could be easily and rapidly rendered out of date by changes to national policies. My constituents who are campaigning to protect the green belt will be concerned about that, and I pay tribute to them and support their campaign.

The Bill states:

“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy”,

so local democratic processes for determining planning decisions could be seriously undermined. New clause 73 in my name would ensure that the Government cannot use NDMPs to allow housing to be built on green-belt land. It is remarkable that, despite the Bill introducing NDMPs, the Government have not set out what will be in their scope. Surely the Government would want to be clear about that before legislating for their introduction.

It is clear that, under the Conservatives, there has not been sufficient protection for the green belt. According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, more than 42% of planning applications submitted for green-belt land in the 10 years to 2020 were granted, and importantly, the report also points out that there is sufficient brownfield land for more than 1 million homes.

Part 5 of the Bill replaces the current system of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments with a new environmental outcomes report regime. New clause 72 would require EOR regulations made under part 5 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure to ensure a high level of scrutiny. EIAs and SEAs have been vital to the protection of sites of local, national and international environmental importance for decades. They set out and assess the impacts that developments may have on the environment, and help local authorities to decide on planning applications. It is a matter of extreme concern that a huge amount of detail—including information on which plans and projects EORs will apply to—is deferred to secondary legislation. In effect, the Bill gives a blank cheque to Ministers to change environmental protections in the planning system. The super-affirmative procedure should be used to provide much-needed greater parliamentary oversight.

The Bill currently states that, before making any EOR regulations that contain provision for what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan. This omits crucial considerations such as the preservation of the green belt, the protection of heritage and climate obligations, which should be central to any environmental assessment process. Amendment 63 addresses that omission. It is vital for the Secretary of State, as well as having regard to considerations such as protecting the green belt and meeting our climate obligations, to have regard to the protection of heritage when setting EOR regulations, because heritage and the historical character of the places where we live are immensely important.

The green belt is not safe in the hands of the Conservatives, and the Bill should be strengthened to provide much greater protections for it. People will not forgive politicians who concrete over the rural landscapes that they value so much. Nor can we trust this Government to protect the environment and address the climate emergency: that was made abundantly clear last week by the Secretary of State’s decision to grant permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria, a shocking decision which has attracted the attention, and the concern, of John Kerry, the United States climate envoy.

In 2019, the UK Parliament declared a climate and environment emergency. I call on the Government to accept new clauses 72 and 73 and amendment 63, which I believe would strengthen the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

But there is much more to do, and some councils are trying to thwart the aims of Parliament, either by counting every application as a self-build when it is not or by seeking to manipulate downwards the numbers on the registers by insisting on a local connection test, by charging a substantial fee or even by removing people’s names when they have not yet met their obligations to those registered individuals. My proposals would make it much more difficult for councils to behave in that way, and would substantially increase the likelihood that more supply will come forward, which is what we need if we are to create a world in which more people on ordinary incomes have the chance to bring forward their own schemes and have a dwelling of their own.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Happy wedding anniversary, Nickie Aiken!

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to speak in favour of Government new clause 119, to which I am delighted to add my name. The campaign for a register for short-term Airbnb-style properties has been long in the making. Before I came to this place, when I was a member of Philippa Roe’s cabinet on Westminster Council, we successfully lobbied the Government of the time—the coalition Government—to secure a 90-day limit for lettings in London under the Deregulation Act 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to Philippa Roe, Baroness Couttie, who lost her battle against cancer yesterday. I pay tribute to the brilliant work she did as a councillor.

It should therefore come as no surprise that I welcome the substance of the Government’s new clause 119, which would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a registration scheme for short-term rental properties. Legislating for such a scheme, let alone understanding the scale of the problem across the country, has been hampered over the past decade by a distinct lack of evidence and data. With this in mind, I would like to stress the importance of subsection 3 of new clause 119, which will mean that the Secretary of State

“must consult the public before making the first regulations under this section.”

This is absolutely the right approach, in my opinion. Consultation will be fundamental, and we need time to review the data and make sure that we are doing this right.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). There are strong commonalities between the Government’s new clause 119 and new clause 107, and I know, having run a local authority, that we must allow councils the freedom to do what is best for their own area. Believe me, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To avoid over-legislating, it will be essential that we get this right before applying the standardised registration scheme to the to-do list of local authorities, primarily because not all local authorities need a registration scheme; for those where a scheme is necessary, it must differ according to regional trends in short-term letting. Westminster will be different from York, and requirements in York will be different from those in Cumbria and coastal communities.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has really listened and got this argument. I do ask, though, that we look at announcing a timescale for the first regulations to be brought forward, to allow local authorities to start planning now for the registration if it is coming later this year. I am delighted that the Department has accepted our arguments and has brought in new clause 119.

Council Tax

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that this is not a general debate on voter ID; it is about the regulations that pertain to it, so I ask people to stick to the regulations.

Assets of Community Value: Black Horse Pub

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very glad that the subject of my first Adjournment debate is such a popular and important pub in the middle of Greenford, in the heart of my constituency. The Black Horse pub, which dates back as far as 1726, is a place where families, workers, and regulars from all parts of the local community come together. The pub sits in Oldfield Lane North alongside the Grand Union Canal, with the canal not only providing the setting for the beer garden, but bringing the pub extra customers who have moored their boats nearby. It hosts live music events, sporting events, quiz nights and fun days, and I have heard that it used to host a weekly karaoke night. I am told there are plans to bring the karaoke night back, and I hope very much to be there for that—parliamentary business allowing.

One reason I am telling the House about what the Black Horse has to offer is, of course, my wish to encourage people to visit it whenever they are in the area, but I also want to help the House to understand the role that it plays in the local community, and why there was such deep concern about rumours that its owners, Fuller’s, were considering selling it off. Just across the road from the Black Horse thousands of new flats are being built, so when rumours began to circulate that the pub’s owners might be considering selling it for housing, people feared the worst. I therefore wrote to Fuller’s in June last year to ask about its intentions, and I have to say that its response was concerning. That response stated:

“It has been interesting to see the development in Greenford and the recent sale of The Railway”,

another pub nearby. Fuller’s went on to say:

“if we can see a strong future, particularly around strong local community engagement, we like to invest for the long term. If not we do look at alternatives.”

Frankly, that reply sent alarm bells ringing, so I launched a petition to show Fuller’s how strongly people feel about the importance of protecting the Black Horse for the future. In less than a week, the petition had attracted well over 1,000 signatures, more than three quarters of which were from either the UB6 postcode area, where the Black Horse is located, or from one of the postcode areas immediately nearby. Fuller’s put out a press statement in response to the petition saying that, at the time, it had

“no plans to close it”,

but it did not go further in setting out its commitment to the pub, and the careful wording of its response did not provide the reassurance we sought.

It was clear that local people wanted greater protection for such an important local asset, so in March this year, I was very glad to call a public meeting in the pub to formally create the new Protect the Black Horse group. Over 80 people came to this meeting to agree the constitution for the new group, hold our first annual general meeting and appoint our management committee. This public meeting established Protect the Black Horse as a constituted, not-for-profit community group set up to support efforts to protect the pub. I am very pleased that today, in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons, are fellow members of the committee Sarita, Brian, Sindy, Mel and James.

Over the last six months, I and the other members of the committee have been working together to apply to Ealing Council to try to get the pub listed as an asset of community value. We know that being listed by the council as an asset of community value does not provide absolute protection for pubs, but it does mean that if Fuller’s tried to sell the Black Horse, we would be able to block it from doing so for six months. During that time, we would have the chance to put together a community bid to buy the pub instead. We also know that being listed as an asset of community value would help to keep the Black Horse as a pub, whoever owns it. That is because being listed as an asset of community value can be an important consideration in deciding planning applications, therefore making it harder for anyone to get permission to change it from a pub into flats.

I owe a great debt of thanks to the Co-operative party for all its support and advice in our efforts to make the asset of community value application as strong as possible. I also pay tribute to CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, for its invaluable advice. One of my first meetings as an MP, on an evening barely a month after I was elected, was in the Black Horse with the local West Middlesex branch of CAMRA, so we have long had a shared interest in protecting the future of this pub.

After our application to make the Black Horse an asset of community value had been submitted to Ealing Council, I became aware that the council had received a legal letter from Fuller’s lawyers, Freeths, objecting to what we were seeking to do. This 17-page legal letter pressed the council to consider the application invalid. The letter cautioned that

“listing of a property can have severe and far-reaching consequences for the owners of listed properties”.

It went on to warn—perhaps even, implicitly, to threaten—that the listing of a property as an asset of community value

“can also have serious consequences for listing councils, who are placed at risk of the requirement to compensate affected owners where an inappropriate nomination is accepted”.

However, we were not deterred. We pressed on, strengthened the application and waited for Ealing Council to come to its determination. I am very glad to report that, in August this year, Ealing Council took the excellent decision to approve the Black Horse’s listing as an asset of community value.

I mention the letter from Fuller’s lawyers, Freeths, for two reasons. First, I felt it was a rather heavy-handed and lengthy letter from a company that genuinely had no plans to sell the premises, so I consider the fact that it was sent to be some evidence of Fuller’s true intentions. Secondly, and more importantly for this debate, I aim to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some owners may try to deploy such legalistic tactics, perhaps in an attempt to discourage applicants and councils from pursuing potential listings as assets of community value.

This seems to be an approach that CAMRA is well aware of. In its guide to the asset of community value process, CAMRA points out that the process of nomination ought to be straightforward. It explains that

“Judges have confirmed that the legislation sets the bar very low in terms of what should be registered.”

However, CAMRA also recognises that the process can sometimes become less straightforward. In CAMRA’s view, in some cases this is a result of “pressures brought to bear” on councils by owners who have “reasons for resisting” asset of community value registration. I would welcome the Minister looking into the use of such heavy-handed legal approaches to try to undermine the asset of community value process and consider what steps the Government can take to discourage such tactics from being deployed in future.

I also encourage the Minister to consider other ways in which the process of protecting assets of community value can be strengthened, as my colleagues in the Opposition have suggested. At the moment, if the Black Horse were put up for sale, we in the community would only have a right to bid alongside others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, has set out, we believe that there should be a new community right to buy, so that rather than being one bidder among others, the community would have first refusal on buying the asset. We also propose that such a move should sit alongside a doubling of the current six-month moratorium period on a sale to 12 months to help communities to find time to acquire finance.

Local people across the country want greater control over important local assets being sold off and lost to the community. Over the last year and a half, local people in Greenford have made their view clear that they want to protect the Black Horse from being sold off and turned into flats. The comments and actions of the pub’s owners have given us cause for concern, so I am grateful to Sarita, Brian, Sindy, Mel and James—my fellow members of the “Protect the Black Horse” committee—for their help in applying to Ealing Council to get the pub listed as an asset of community value.

We are glad to have been successful in getting the Black Horse listed, but our experience has exposed some of the difficulties that others may face in making a similar application. We are also aware of the limits to the protection that such a listing offers, so I urge the Government to give people in Greenford and across the country greater control over what happens to pubs and other important places in our local communities.

When the Minister responds, I would be grateful for his comments on the use of heavy-handed legal tactics, such as those I described, from asset owners, which are against the spirit of the asset of community value process. I would be grateful for an undertaking that he will consider the ways in which communities can be given greater control over important local assets in future. Finally, I would be grateful if he joined me in congratulating all those who have helped to get the Black Horse listed as an asset of community value. I hope to take the members of the Black Horse committee for a drink later to thank them for coming to the House of Commons for this debate. I close by making it clear that the Minister, and you, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, are more than welcome to join us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much.

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

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for securing it. He raises a number of important issues that are particularly pertinent to local communities when they see up front the challenges of protecting assets and community places, which are important. “Assets” is an impersonal word to use, but these places are the hearts of communities where people have come for many centuries to congregate, talk, and exchange ideas and views. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that pubs, although we cannot protect them in all instances or support everything that people would like to do, are an important part of the community.

What the hon. Gentleman and his fellow committee members have done is to be commended. I put on record my thanks to Sarita, Brian, Sindy, Mel and James—I am not technically supposed to turn away from the Dispatch Box, but I can see them in the Gallery—and everybody who has worked hard to ensure that the Black Horse can be put on the register. I hope that gives some peace of mind to the community in Ealing North and Greenford that the asset is here to stay and will remain an important part of the community in the years and decades to come.

We have brought forward changes in the last decade or so to recognise exactly the kind of points that the hon. Gentleman has made: pubs are important, they make a difference to our community and they are valued. All right hon. and hon. Members receive regular communication directly from CAMRA to highlight the importance of this agenda and these protections. CAMRA is also good at ensuring that local residents get in touch with us on a regular basis, often in the lead up to the Budget, to highlight the importance of pubs. We wholeheartedly agree with that.

Pre-covid, the rate of pub closures had happily started to slow and it looked like a stabilisation was occurring within the sector, but obviously there is more work to be done. From my experience in North East Derbyshire, I know that it is immensely sad when we see pubs leaving. Some 10, 20 or 30 years ago, many communities had many more pubs, but the number of pubs has slowly reduced. We need to see what we can do and where it is reasonable and proportionate to protect them, if communities wish to do that.

I am glad to hear that, in this particular instance, the group was able to use the assets of community value scheme. That was introduced in England in the Localism Act 2011 and provides, as the hon. Gentleman said, communities with a route to nominate any building or land that furthers social wellbeing in the interests of the community. We accept that community assets play a vital role in creating thriving neighbourhoods. I am grateful for the feedback that he has provided through the debate today.

On the experiences that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow committee members had, the good ones included the fact that the pub was able to reach the register. Some were less positive, or more concerning. I am sorry to hear about the potential challenges that were caused by the document that was received from the owners. Although, obviously, I have not seen the document myself, that does not sound within the spirit of the intention of the 2011 rules. I would be happy, on behalf of the Department, to receive any further information on that, so that we can consider what happened in this instance and look at that for the future.

The hon. Gentleman, rightly, pushed the Government with regards to where to strike the right balance to ensure that individual owners of property—the basic principle of capital—can do as they wish with that, within the law and the boundaries of what is acceptable, while still recognising that there are certain assets, certain uses of capital, that are particularly important for the community. That is why the Localism Act introduced the assets of community value scheme in 2011. I accept that there is a valid discussion to be had about the length of time for consideration and, equally, about exactly where we draw the lines on what should be done, how it should be done and in what order. The general view is that what we did 10 years ago was a big step forward in making sure that we can protect assets such as this, or give the opportunity for assets such as this to be protected. We know that it does not work in all circumstances. A couple of years ago, there was a public house in Eckington in my constituency which we were unable to save despite the community looking into that in detail.

I will certainly pass back the comments of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow committee members with regards to potential changes to the Localism Act. It is about striking the right balance. It is a difficult one to take an absolute view on, but I thank him and his colleagues for their representations. I will ensure that they are considered in the future, as and when and if we look into this policy area again.

I wish to touch on the slightly broader context and some of the things that the Government are doing to help when these type of instances arise. We know that assets of community value are increasingly being used, not just in Ealing, but across the country. One way in which we are trying to augment the approach—the hon. Gentleman requested that we look again at the criteria—is through things such as the community ownership fund. I know that that is appropriate in some circumstances, but I accept that it will not be appropriate in all circumstances. None the less, that is £150 million over the course of the last few years and in the coming years, and it is explicitly to support communities in saving assets at risk.

Since July 2021, community groups have been able to bid for up to £250,000 of match funding to help to buy or take over local assets at risk of closure. Of course, the owner has to be willing to enter into those kinds of discussions, which I accept is a challenge the hon. Gentleman has posed. Equally, I hope that those who have an interest in the matter and are following this debate recognise that the Government have taken another step forward in trying to support local communities to be able to take ownership. In the first bidding round, we have awarded more than £10 million to 38 bids from across the UK, from community centres and heritage buildings to pubs and sports clubs. The community ownership fund has, for example, enabled the Old Forge Community Benefit Society to raise funds to buy the Old Forge pub on the Knoydart peninsula in northern Scotland. The Old Forge reopened in March and will be run by the local community.

Right at the other end of the UK, the fund has enabled the Friends of the Newtown St Martin Pub in Cornwall to raise funds to save the Prince of Wales pub after it closed during lockdown. The pub’s reopening party was just last month, and I am told that it attracted huge crowds and that the pub has been well supported since. There are options not just to protect through the asset register, but to raise funding should sales come up. There are many other excellent examples of successful bids and I wish them all the best of luck.

To conclude, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, which is an incredibly important part of the community discussion. Pubs are an incredibly important part of community life and I absolutely concur with him that we should protect them where we are able to do so. I am grateful for his feedback. I will absolutely look further into the letter and the statements that he highlighted. I wish him and all members of the Save the Black Horse committee all the best in ensuring that the Black Horse, which has been part of the community for the last 350 years, is saved for another 350 years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, James, for the offer of a pint, but with a heavy heart, I have to rush for a train.

Question put and agreed to.

Carbon Emissions (Buildings) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. On the question of steel, she is absolutely right. If enacted, the Bill would be a great opportunity for British steel. As she will know, about 50% of all steel used for construction in this country is imported. Given the additional carbon emissions that result from the transportation of a very heavy and bulky product, British Steel and steel producers in her constituency—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Could the hon. Gentleman please face the microphones when he speaks?

[Jerome Mayhew]

British Steel and other steel producers, including the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency, already have plans in place to reduce the carbon intensity of their products before 2035 and 2055 by as much as 80% by reusing scrap metal instead of exporting it abroad for reuse. Does she agree that the Bill gives impetus to this developing new sector in the steel industry, rather than restraining it?

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

I agree that we need to be extremely careful about the transportation of materials—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but therein lies a challenge. To work through the restrictions in the Bill, we would need a level of confidence when we imported materials, be they steel or anything else. We would need confidence about how much carbon has gone into the steel; trust in the people who made it; and to know how far it has come, where the fuel for the ship has come from and how the steel in the ship was built. He is right that there are opportunities for steel, but if he is seeking to persuade me solely on the terms that he mentioned, he has not quite managed to do so.

That brings me to my next point: we need to discuss whether we have that level of assurance. Inevitably, many of the products that go into the buildings of the future will come from abroad, and we need to understand that. As always, companies in this country will play by the rules, but my hon. Friend knows that that is not always the case across the world.

Concrete is another sector that could face problems, if sustainability advantages are not weighted properly. I have a fantastic firm in my constituency, Techrete, which I am very proud of. It has contributed to a number of buildings across the country and the world. There have been 600 projects in the past 37 years, and I will draw your attention to a small number that you may have seen, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they are all quite close to where we are. The projects include King’s Cross station, the Olympic village and The Broadway on Victoria Street—if you walk out of here and look to your right, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you get to M&S, you will see that building. They also include Victoria Square, the Heathrow Express tunnel—we probably made the steel for the rails in that tunnel as well, and if we did, it will be the finest steel in the world—Wembley Park and University College London Hospital. On the South Bank, on the other side of the river, there are some buildings that we made, and there is also the Tottenham Hotspur stadium, Westfield shopping centre, the Imperial War Museum, St Bartholomew's Hospital, the V&A and the lettering at Arsenal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us hear from the Minister now; there will be opportunities later for other Members to come in.