Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I confirm that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 12

Restriction on title

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 67.

[Jacob Young]

All amendments made to this legislation in the other place were minor and technical in nature, and serve to make the legislation function as intended.

This is a historic day for leaseholders: this package of reforms will transform the leasehold housing market and the lives of millions of leaseholders across England and Wales. Our reforms to lease extensions and the buying of freehold will give families and individuals security, which is a core Conservative principle. Giving more leaseholders the freedom to manage their own building will empower them to make important decisions themselves, such as choosing a management company that delivers good-quality work at reasonable prices, and will require management companies to up their standards and give leaseholders a better deal in order to retain and win business.

On service charges, leaseholders must be given more information as to what is being done to their property and what they are actually paying for. The requirement for landlords and management companies to specify exactly what the service charge entails will encourage higher standards among those companies and empower leaseholders to challenge poor service. That is because transparency is a core Conservative value, too. Similarly, our buildings insurance reforms will stop leaseholders being charged exorbitant, opaque commissions on top of their premiums and tackle the proven cases of insider trading in the market—fairness is another core Conservative principle.

Then, we turn to the millions of freeholders living on new estates who are impacted by poor service, bad management and opaque fees. Those estates and the properties on them bring joy, security and futures for everyone who has purchased those properties, including the 1 million households that will have been created in this Parliament. I can tell the House today that the Government’s target of building 1 million new homes in this Parliament has been met. These further rights for homeowners on private and mixed-tenure estates encapsulate what the Bill is trying to do: bring fairness, security, transparency and competition to freehold estates. It is not right to force someone who has bought a freehold property to deal only with one management company, which is not required to give any information or charge reasonable fees—a monopoly.

The Bill will explicitly ban the creation of future leasehold houses. This is a once-in-a-generation reform that will alter the housing market forever, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I think the whole House wishes that the Secretary of State was able to be with us. He is one of the people who has helped to move this forward, together with the junior Minister. I say to Michael: well done, not just on education, but on getting a grip of the horrors in residential leasehold.

After the Grenfell fire tragedy, people realised that those stuck with the bill not just for cladding but for every other fire defect were not the developer, the architect, the surveyors or the suppliers of components, but the residential leaseholders who by law are only tenants and own not a single brick in the building. It was when the Secretary of State came in that the action started. Actually, he was not the first. Two other Secretaries of State had to give instructions to their permanent secretaries to start giving out some compensation. I still commend to the Government having an agency to take over potential claims of all residential leaseholders, taking action against those responsible and holding a roundtable with all their insurers. That would get £10 billion in almost overnight, saving the money going to the lawyers.

To return to the Bill, there has been cross-party agreement over the past eight years that something was needed. The Law Commission produced many recommendations, most of which are in the Bill. I will not go into all the detail of the debate that I heard in another place, where some Members seem to think that people’s property rights are being harmed. I do not remember those Members of another place complaining when the disgraceful statutory instrument 632 came through in 2020, boosting landowners’ values by about £5 billion. The only people paying that were the leaseholders.

I am very grateful to the people who have supported the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform. Katherine O’Riordan has done really well on that, as have the trustees of the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly, together with new trustees, including Liam Spender, who has done a great deal in fighting off very bad landlords in the east end of London.

Three problems remain, on which the House will want to see the next Administration take action urgently. One is that forfeitures, as the whole House accepts, is a draconian system that must go. The threat of losing the home is one thing, but all the equity going to the landlord is totally another, and that should be stopped. In one case in which I was involved in Plantation Wharf, someone was at risk of losing £600,000 over a disputed bill of £7,000.

Secondly, the commitment to bring in a ground rent cap has not come forward but it must be introduced. I acknowledge that I have a share of a small block of leasehold flats in Worthing where I have a home, and I own another leasehold property that I let out, but I will not benefit from this because I have negotiated with my landlord that they will pay the ground rent for the next 30 years, which will see me out. We need a ground rent cap. We know that ground rent turns to peppercorn if there is a legal extension, and we ought to get to that as fast as we can. If on the way we have to stop at £250 a year, that is fine.

The last thing is that we need to recognise that a move to commonhold is the only way forward to ensure an effective housing market. We ought to stop new residential leasehold properties being sold, and we ought to find a way to help existing leaseholders avoid facing penalties from external landlords, who can go into all sorts of bad behaviour, whether on insurance commissions or other ways of taking money off leaseholders improperly. That would be in the interests of both landlords and leaseholders.

I congratulate the Government and thank the Minister for his attendance. I am very grateful to the Opposition for helping persuade the Prime Minister that this Bill could come forward in this last Session of this Parliament. I claim the credit because on the Tuesday before the King’s coronation, I was standing with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the official Opposition and I said to the Prime Minister that the Opposition would help him—Rishi looked at Keir, Keir nodded, and now we have the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the leave of the House, I will put a single question on the Government motions to agree to Lords amendments 2 to 67, otherwise we would be here a long time.

Lords amendments 2 to 67 agreed to.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

East, of course—as someone from East Yorkshire, I say east is always best. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) dealt well with the security concerns. We bring young people here to learn about our democracy in the learning centre, and they have to go through a similar process, so I do not believe that should be an impediment.

We have heard about the loss of green space. I am not a resident of the area, so I have no selfish interest in whether I can walk my dog in the park. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made clear, the land take will be 7.5%. I find it a bit of a strange argument to say, “Don’t build this here because it takes some green space away. Build it over there, where it takes somebody else’s green space away.” I am not sure that I buy that argument either.

We have heard arguments about the Jewish community. Some people have prayed the Jewish community in aid as being against the proposal, but the Jewish community is not homogenous, so there will be very different views. It is worth reiterating again that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East very eloquently made clear, Jewish leadership in this country, including the Chief Rabbi and those at the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, whom we in government and Parliament rely on and trust to be representatives of their communities, have been clear that they support the memorial at that site. Again, my hon. Friend stole some of my thunder by quoting so eloquently—better than I could have done—some of the Holocaust survivors who so dearly wanted to see the memorial built. Fortunately some are still with us, and I hope they will see it built, but others have passed. It is clear that although there is not one homogenous view, Jewish leadership groups and community leaders absolutely support the memorial being built next to this place.

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), whom I respect very much, described the proposal as a “box”, which I did not think was an appropriate way of describing it, and there have been other comments about the size of the venue. I do not believe that size should be an impediment to coming away from the memorial having had a truly moving and educational experience. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who I am mentioning often—I have to be nice to him at last, after 14 years of us being here together—Yad Vashem is an incredibly powerful place. The parts of it that I find most moving are the small memorial to the children and the room with the photographs, which are so powerful and moving. I do not believe that size should be an argument. It seems strange to argue about costs and say at the same time, “But it’s not big enough; maybe it needs to be bigger but somewhere else,” which may result in it being much more expensive.

I am conscious that the debate is time limited, but I wanted to make this contribution. I believe and hope that the memorial will be built. At the moment, we are seeing a record rise in Jew hate, in antisemitism, so it is more important than ever that the memorial and learning centre stands next to this place, which is the thin blue line—or red line, or whichever colour we want to call it—[Hon. Members: “Green line!] It is the thin green line—and red line—between mob rule and democracy. Over the past few months, that line has been tested in a way it has not been tested for quite some time. That is why it is my deepest belief that the location next to this place—which is all that stands between us and despotism—should be pursued. As we saw in Europe in the 1930s, and as we see even today in parts of the world, democratic institutions are very fragile. On that basis, I will be opposing the amendments this evening, and I look forward to the Bill passing.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As Members know, everything must conclude by six minutes past 7, and I want to give at least eight to 10 minutes for the Front Benchers to be able to contribute. Rather than imposing a time limit, I ask people to look at around the 10-minute mark, which will give everybody an opportunity. Of course, Sir Peter gets two minutes right at the very end.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). If that was his last speech in this place and representing his constituency, may I say that he does it proud? He does his constituency proud, and he has done his constituency proud. The House and his party are proud, and his service to this House and his eloquence are known to all. I congratulate him on that.

I will begin by addressing some of the points that have been made during the course of this debate, and perhaps putting to rest some of the suggestions that have been posited. One is that this Bill is in some way being steamrollered, which I suggest cannot be anything other than a flight of fancy. In fact, this measure has taken many years—close to a decade from its earliest formations. It has not quite reached the Dickensian Jarndyce v. Jarndyce level of bureaucracy and contemplation, but I do not think it is accurate to claim that it has in any way been steamrollered.

I also do not think it is in any way appropriate to say that security concerns—legitimate though they may be—are a good reason to countenance removing this important centre to another location. We must stand up against the thugs, the violence and the vandals. We in this House are a thin green line, and hopefully not that thin; hopefully, we represent the vast majority of people who defy those who would vandalise Holocaust memorials, and who hold in contempt those who would disgrace themselves and the freedoms, democracy and ancient history of this country by vandalising the memorial to the dead. Not only is that a wickedness and a blasphemy to those who have fallen, it is a type of fascism that is a disgrace to those who perform it, and we must stand up against it. We must say, “I’m not going to refuse to build a location of historic importance on a particular site because some criminals may choose to graffiti it. We defy you, and we stand up against you. We do not buckle to those security concerns.”

We need a prominent memorial marking the Holocaust because, sadly, recent events have shown that we could see it happening again. It is not fanciful to say that such a thing could happen again. There are voices in this House who have heckled Members, including myself when I have spoken out against antisemitism, and there are voices outside who care about every nuance of other people’s rights—about microaggressions—but do not care about Jewish women and girls being brutally raped and savagely tortured while hostages in the pogrom of 7 October.

We have seen a refusal by respected authorities around the world to accept that Hamas are a terrorist organisation and that what they did on 7 October is unparalleled since the actual Holocaust of 1939 to 1945. In defying that truth, they show the world that it is not impossible that such an atrocity, or something like it, could occur again. That is why we need a memorial.

--- Later in debate ---

I will end on this point, because I know that time is very precious. In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, really summed it up. This proposal is too big for this small park, but it is too small for the gravity of the issues we are addressing.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As I said, the conclusion of the debate is at six minutes past seven. There is clearly a bit more time, so perhaps time to take interventions and so on.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the SNP. It is perhaps slightly unexpected for some that I am standing here, but anyone who is aware of the areas of interest that I pursue here will be less surprised. I will go through some of the amendments and new clauses, and share some things that I think are worth pulling out. The comments made so far have been profoundly helpful in teasing out some of the details.

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke very well about the importance of education. That is the key point of amendment 6 and something I have spoken about often in this place: the necessity of a focus on education and making sure that the testimony of survivors is captured in a way that will ensure it is available to generations who come after us. Through initiatives like Vision Schools Scotland, or working with organisations like the Anne Frank Trust or the Holocaust Educational Trust, we can see the impact of education. The necessity of marrying up education with the memorial is a profoundly helpful idea. We will not be able to take the lessons of the past, which we talk about so easily, if we do not make concrete efforts to make it a reality when we say that we never want to see it again.

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), makes a reasonable point, which is that it would be sensible to be sure that the costs are properly accounted for and that there is an appropriate level of control. That is a key point. This is, rightly, an ambitious project, so his amendment is an interesting one. His point about potential private donations is interesting in ensuring the ability for the project to move forward in an appropriately ambitious way. I am sure the Minister will share further information on all of that.

On amendments 2, 3 and 5, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke very powerfully about her local community, as well as the Jewish community. How all those things come together is very important. She spoke very passionately and sincerely about her desire for a consultation. I understand why she is so concerned about that. My own personal concern, which weighs on me slightly, is that that would also mean more time would elapse. Her amendments made sense: she is looking to add some clarity to the specifics, such as where restrictions relating to the land might be removed—the Minister was helpful in trying to clarify that—and what the overall footprint would be. That will be allocated and it does matter, regardless of where it is going to happen.

I understand the need for clarity and reassurance for residents and other users of, for instance, Victoria Tower Gardens, and I understand why the hon. Lady wants that level of confidence to be provided for the people who live in this community. I imagine that, given the kind of memorials that are located in that particular park, people in general would want to take comfort from the fact that they could be protected in an appropriate way. Surely, though, it is possible for us to have a memorial and an education centre and to protect those existing memorials. The hon. Member for Worthing West spoke earlier about the state of repair of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. Perhaps there needs to be a bigger conversation about these issues.

As is clear from the Bill’s “Extent, commencement and short title”, it is an England and Wales Bill, which is why some people might not have expected to see me rise to speak. It concerns a planning matter that relates to a different country, from my perspective, so I will not comment on the details of, for instance, the planning and location issues raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle. What I will say is that I am here today only because I think it profoundly important for us to see concrete proposals that can be implemented as soon as possible to deliver a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We cannot lose sight of that, and it should not be lost among the—admittedly also important—details. The territorial extent provision in clause 3 speaks for itself, so I will not go there.

The hon. Member for Carlisle talked about security. None of us need to look too far to appreciate the need for us to think seriously about the security provisions that will be necessary. The world is increasingly polarised and we need to ensure that everyone is secure, and that will be particularly important in this instance. I am not sure whether new clause 1 is flexible enough to allow for the necessary measures—which will surely change as times change—to be amended without undue delay, but no doubt the hon. Member thought about that when he tabled the new clause. I am sure that other Members share my concern about the spikes in hate crime, including the frightening spike in antisemitism incidents. We know that, regrettably, these spikes have happened in the past as well, and any security arrangements will have to be able to cope with changeable times.

As for new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we have been down this road many times, and I wonder whether the measures that she has proposed will cause further delay. Some people may say that it would not be appropriate to rush in, and of course that is true, but I do not think anyone could reasonably accuse this project of having been dealt with in a rush. Let me say, as a Scottish MP who has no jurisdiction in this geographical area, that this is a really important matter, so by all means let there be further consideration, but can we just get on with it?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Before I begin my brief remarks about the amendments, let me restate the Opposition’s support for the construction of a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.

Given that this simple three-clause Bill does nothing more than remove pre-existing legislative impediments to the siting of such a memorial and centre in that location and make provision for, and in connection with, expenditure related to its establishment, we have not felt the need to table any amendments to it today. We sincerely hope—not least in view of the amount of time that has now passed since the idea was first proposed in 2015—that the Bill completes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent as speedily as possible, so that the necessary planning application can be considered.

I turn now to the amendments, starting with new clause 2, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We fully appreciate that, although we are united as a House in our commitment to establish a national Holocaust memorial and a world-class learning centre, there are differing and sincerely held views about the appropriateness of Victoria Tower Gardens as the location for them. In some cases, the objection extends only to the siting of the learning centre in that location; in others, it extends to both the centre and the memorial itself.

Miners and Mining Communities

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on the work that he did to secure the debate, and for his admirable opening speech.

According to the excellent report “The State of the Coalfields 2024”, commissioned by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the former coalfields account for 8% of the population in England, 10% in Scotland and 25% in Wales. That gives us an idea of the scale in Wales —one in four people there live in a former coalfield area—and of the importance of today’s debate.

Mining has been a dominant part of Welsh life for generations. My grandfather was a miner, my uncle was a miner, and my father was a Bevin boy who was sent down the local pit during the second world war. There were mines across my constituency from the sea on one side to the sea on the other—Hendy, Llangennech, Bynea, Llwynhendy, Tumble, Cross Hands, Pontyberem, Ponthenri and Pontyates, and in Llanelli itself and Burry Port, with coal being exported from those two busy ports —and, of course, mining has shaped our politics.

My predecessor as MP for Llanelli, the great Jim Griffiths, spoke passionately from his own experience of the hardship that he saw in the mining communities in which he was brought up—the effects of unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, sickness and industrial injury—and took up the fight to bring about the reforms that were needed to help those who fell on hard times. He spoke and wrote about “The Price Wales Pays for Poverty”: maternal mortality, malnutrition, overcrowding, condemned housing, unemployment, silicosis, and the terrible affliction of tuberculosis. He also highlighted the wealth taken from Wales by coal owners, royalty owners and landlords, and demanded a proper response and resources to deal with the country's problems.

When serving in the 1945 Labour Government, Jim Griffiths introduced the Family Allowances Act 1945, under which money was paid directly to mothers. He subsequently introduced the National Insurance Act 1946 and an Act close to his heart, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which was very much born out of the suffering and difficulties of injured miners that he had witnessed and which introduced extra benefits for people injured at work. That Act was universal, in that it covered the entire workforce. It provided injury benefit for six months, disability benefit for the permanently injured, and a death benefit for dependants. It also set up tribunals to assess cases, rather than claimants’ having to take on all the responsibility for pushing their own cases.

Now, some 80 years later and some 40 years on from the miners’ strike, as is documented in the report I mentioned earlier, we have shockingly not eliminated all the problems. There are still high levels of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment and sickness in former mining areas, and there is still much to be done to enable those areas to enjoy the same levels of wealth as others. We know of many of the problems that our former mining communities face, scattered as they are in south Wales up and down steep valleys. Many are in what are now pleasant rural locations, and some contain quite spacious council or former council-owned properties, but their location was clearly intended to be close to the mines where people worked. Now, investors, developers and young people all want to be near the main arteries or in the main towns, and it is so much more difficult to attract inward investment into the more remote mining communities. Furthermore, they are often spread out in different locations along the valley, making it very difficult to provide services, and often there is a considerable distance up or down the valley to get to the most basic of facilities, such as doctors’ surgeries or shops. Nowadays, there are more opportunities for people to work remotely and to set up businesses that use the internet, but some of our mining communities also suffer from inadequate broadband speeds and a poor mobile phone signal.

I want to highlight some specific problems, starting with my serious concerns about the drop in quality of former miners’ concessionary coal. I have met miners in my area who used to receive good-quality smokeless coal, but now receive very poor-quality coal, which is causing considerable problems and expense. The coal is blocking up chimneys, meaning that people have to get their chimneys swept more often and at additional expense, and the fumes and fine ash that it gives off pose serious health risks. In fact, the smell and the fumes that emerge from chimneys are so bad that they are causing neighbours down the street to complain about the smoke.

When I looked into this issue, I found that there was not an isolated batch of coal and that the problem is widespread. On contacting Wayne Thomas of the South Wales NUM, I learned that as stockpiles of anthracite had been run down, coal of an inferior quality was supplied by Russia. Because of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia, which I fully support, the supply was halted and an alternative source had to be found. I understand that the coal now comes from Peru and is supplied in a chimney- compressed duff, using molasses as a binding agent. The NUM says that such coal gives off a very fine ash, which causes respiratory problem—obviously not good for ex-miners, many of whom already have breathing problems.

Across the UK, the complaints are similar to those of former miners in my area, who complain that the smoke from chimneys smells funny and that the coal causes blockages. The NUM has twice met the head of the coal liabilities unit at the Department for Business and Trade to discuss this matter, but there has been no news of any improved source, and better sources must be found. I say to the Minister that miners have worked hard in a difficult and dangerous job, and that they are entitled to receive decent concessionary coal. It is shocking that former miners, many of whom are elderly, are now being given poisonous, poor-quality coal, which gives off fumes and ash that are bad for their health, and which clogs up their chimneys. As a matter of urgency, I beg him to do everything he can to source decent coal for our former miners. It is a Government responsibility.

Turning to the miners’ pensions, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for their work. I hope the Minister is aware of the former BEIS Committee’s report on the mineworkers pension scheme and its recommendations—namely, that the 50/50 surplus sharing arrangements should be comprehensively reviewed to ensure that miners get their fair share, and that the £1.2 billion reserve fund should be given back to the pensioners immediately. It is now three years since that report, and former miners are not getting any younger, but there has still not been any action from the Government. I ask the Minister to look again at the scheme, and to ensure that miners get their fair share.

I turn now to the coal tip legacy. I was a very impressionable small child at the time of the Aberfan coal disaster on 21 October 1966. I was the same age as some of the children buried under the slag heap as it engulfed the school, and I will never forget the images on our black-and-white telly of fathers desperately trying to dig out their children. Following that, we saw the gradual remediation of the tips. Things began to look better and greener, but with the increased frequency of more violent weather events, it is now clear that the job is not done. As we saw all too vividly in the Rhondda a couple of years ago, there is still a lot more work to be done to ensure that the tips are safe.

This is a legacy from pre-devolution times. The slag heaps were produced as a result of mining coal to fuel the factories that filled the coffers of the UK Treasury, and the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure that every tip in Wales is made safe. We in Carmarthenshire are relatively lucky, with fewer and less risky tips than in the valleys further east, where urgent investment is needed. It was very disappointing that there was no mention of any funding in the spring Budget, and I ask the Minister to take this message back to the Chancellor.

I turn to Orgreave. On 18 June, we will mark 40 years since we saw the truly shocking scenes of police attacking miners at Orgreave, and we need a proper inquiry into what happened that day. It is very disappointing that the Government have not instigated such an inquiry, even after the revelations about South Yorkshire police in Bishop James Jones’s Hillsborough report. However, we need not only an inquiry into Orgreave, but a proper Hillsborough law. It is not enough for the Government’s belated response to the Hillsborough report in December last year to espouse the introduction of a voluntary charter, an independent public advocate and a code of ethical policing. Instead, we need a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, and to guarantee fairer funding to enable those affected by a major tragedy to challenge public institutions. I urge the Minister to set up an inquiry into Orgreave, and to adopt a full Hillsborough law.

I want to say a few words about a just transition to the industries of the future, which is the exact opposite of what we saw in the 1980s, when it was clear that the Thatcher Government wanted to destroy the coal industry. However, it was not just the coal industry that was decimated. We saw the closure of the big steel plant in my constituency and numerous other closures across the country, resulting in areas of mass unemployment, with communities feeling that they had been thrown on the scrapheap. The legacy remains till this day, as documented in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust report.

It does not have to be like this. Of course we want to make progress and to harness technology to our advantage —whether it is the spinning mills of the 18th century, motorised transport, robots on the production line, artificial intelligence, the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, or the change from blast furnace steel production to green primary steelmaking—but it should be a just transition, with training and jobs for workers, and investment in the new green industry of the future. That is why it is so disappointing to see the Government’s half-hearted approach to the future of the steel industry. We welcome investment in the electric arc furnace, but there is a refusal to think bigger and to invest in the green primary steelmaking of the future, leaving thousands of workers to lose their jobs. It is a devastating blow for Port Talbot and, yet again, the surrounding former coalfield communities.

We in the Labour party are determined to see a just transition to the industry of the future, with proper investment through our proposed national wealth fund, the upskilling of workers and the creation of quality jobs. Never again do we want to see workers thrown on the scrapheap and communities devastated.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. After Kevan Jones, we will have the Front-Bench contributions and then the wind-up from Grahame Morris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and Madam Deputy Speaker for your admirable chairing of this very good debate? I thank my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), for his work behind the scenes to secure enough colleagues’ signatures to get the debate. More than 30 MPs supported it, and 16 made a speech or intervened. I think we had some excellent contributions, particularly from Opposition Members—obviously I am biased—although there were some very good ones from across the whole House. I thank the lobbyists who came down yesterday from the national mineworkers’ pension scheme—my constituents John Trewhitt, Bert Moncur and Ted Slavin, who made the journey and lobbied Downing Street and Parliament about the anomaly with the mineworkers’ pension surplus.

I did not agree with the Minister’s analysis. I urge him to act with alacrity—I have looked that up; it means physical quickness, coupled with eagerness or enthusiasm —in addressing the issues that have been raised. I thank the respective Front Benchers, and I thank those on the Labour Front Bench for their commitment to mineworkers’ pensions. There is a big job of work to do. I thank everyone for their participation today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As a good Welshman, I am honoured to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered miners and mining communities.

High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for his leadership on this very important and worthwhile private Member’s Bill, and for his unwavering commitment and efforts to champion our high streets.

This has been a fantastic debate. We have learnt a lot about the heritage of different high streets: Thomas Brown Street, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), was named in honour of the world war two hero who retrieved the enigma codes at sea; the 800-year-old high street in Basingstoke was the home of the author Jane Austen; the 126 years of Rowells in Stapleford; and the most famous high street in the world, Oxford Street, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We also heard about the towns fund in Broxtowe, which has given £21.1 million to Stapleford, and the transforming cities fund in North Tyneside, which has contributed towards its new transport hub and piazza. Sadly, we did not hear from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the levelling-up fund, which has given £13.4 million to transform Ellesmere Port town centre.

As we heard in the debate, everyone here recognises that healthy and vibrant high streets are vital not only for local economies, but for the quality of life and pride of local communities. However, the challenges currently faced by our high streets are significant, whether from the lingering impact of covid-19 on footfall or the ever-present challenge of competition with online retailers. While some have been able to weather the storm, many have struggled. The Government are committed to working with local communities to help turn that around. The Bill will play an important role in that mission, alongside other Government interventions, as part of our broader strategy to help high streets reinvent themselves. They include injecting billions of pounds into high street regeneration and renewal, including the long-term plan for towns, which will invest £1.5 billion across 75 towns to give them the tools they need to build a better future for local people.

One of the towns selected as part of our long-term plan for towns is Canvey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). Canvey, like all the 75 towns in our long-term plan for towns, will receive £20 million over the next 10 years to invest in local people’s priorities. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, who has for so long championed the people of Canvey Island. Without her advocacy and brilliant campaigning, we would not be able to give them that £20 million cash.

Our long-term plan for towns will sit alongside high street rental auctions, which will require landlords to rent out vacant commercial properties to willing tenants such as local businesses. That will help to create lively high streets with increased footfall. Of course, no high street is the same, with local areas best placed to find solutions to local problems, which is why strong local partnerships on the ground are key to successful regeneration. We want to support councils, local businesses and local communities to give them the resources and powers they need. I think of high streets in my own constituency, such as those in Redcar, Marske, Eston or Normanby.

Normanby is probably the smallest of the towns I have just mentioned. At the moment, it is beset with roadworks that are expected to continue for around three months. That is already having a huge impact on local businesses. It is important, obviously, that when local authorities plan such major roadworks, they give serious consideration to the damage they can do to local businesses. Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot mention Normanby High Street without thinking of the late Kenny Surtees, who for as long I can remember had a card shop on that street. I think he would have had a few choice things to say to the local Teesside Gazette about how those roadworks are going.

The Government recognise that many local authorities have regeneration strategies already in place, but the Bill will make the designation of high streets and the creation of high street improvement plans a statutory requirement. That will ensure local authorities not only prioritise the health of their high streets, but use their available powers to drive forward improvements, such as section 215 powers, to require land to be cleaned up when it is detracting from the surroundings.

The Bill will require each local authority to designate at least one high street or network of streets in their area. Local authorities will be able to designate as many high streets as they want. However, the Government have committed to funding the costs of up to three high street designations. Any designation beyond that number would have to be funded by the local authority itself. Local authorities will then have to create plans for the designated high streets, which should be reviewed at least every five years. Local residents, businesses, community organisations and others, including Members of Parliament, will rightly have a real say on the action plans, and the local authority will be accountable for delivering them.

Accordingly, the Bill will require local authorities to consult on which high streets are chosen. Different areas will have different challenges, so the improvements we can expect to see will vary. The focus in one area might be on tackling antisocial behaviour—again, something we have heard about in the debate, and we have heard some fantastic examples of what police and crime commissioners are doing to tackle it—while in others it could be creating more green spaces to rest and socialise. What is crucial, however, is flexibility to ensure that local authorities have the agency to enact the best change for their area.

The Bill will also create a duty on local authorities to take into account high street improvement plans when exercising their planning functions. That will support the already strong protections for mixed-use high streets and the complementing tools available to authorities, such as changes to the use classes order in 2020 to create the commercial, business and service use class—class E.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank hon. Members for their suggestions for strengthening the Bill during its passage through the House. We worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South to make some small amendments in Committee so that the Bill is as effective as possible. Those changes included ensuring that local authorities can make as many high street designations as they wish, with the Government funding up to three of those designations. That will give local authorities with a large number of high streets the flexibility needed to designate more than three, if they desire. I note my hon. Friend’s point that Stoke-on-Trent is a city of six towns, so there will clearly be more than three high streets that the local authority might want to intervene in.

We have also updated the wording of the Bill to allow for the designation of a network of streets, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, as the Government recognise that high streets are complex ecosystems that are not always limited to one street, but could be made up of a network of connecting streets.

Additionally, the Bill now sets out that local authorities must review their improvement plans at least once in every five-year period, with guidance to follow up on the circumstances in which local authorities should consider undertaking a review, such as where the area of the designated high street is expanded or reduced. That will ensure that plans remain meaningful and relevant. Following Royal Assent, we will issue guidance on developing the improvement plans.

The Government recognise that local authorities are best placed to know what their high street improvement plans should cover. Officials in my Department have already begun outreach with local authorities on the guidance and will continue to work with local authorities and other stakeholders as the guidance is developed. It is important that the plans are not left to gather dust but remain constantly relevant, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us. That is why the Bill requires local authorities to update their plans at least every five years, which we believe strikes the right balance between giving the plans enough time to have a meaningful effect and ensuring that they remain relevant to the reinvigoration of our high streets. We recognise that the measures should not come at the cost of overburdening councils that are already under pressure. As I have already mentioned, we will ensure that local authorities have the extra funding they need to be able to deliver the measures in the Bill effectively.

I am grateful that proposed new clause 1 was not moved on Report, as it would have removed all permitted development rights, not just those that change the use from commercial to residential lettings. I appreciate that that is a challenge in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and I note that the LGA has echoed her concerns. I will meet both of them as the Bill progresses to understand the issues further and see what can be done to mitigate them.

As already stated, the Bill forms one part of a broader strategy to help regenerate and level up our high streets. Part of the solution is funding, with the Government investing billions of pounds into helping high streets navigate the difficult environment they face. The latest of that funding is the £1.5 billion long-term plan for towns, which will power ambitious regeneration projects over the next decade.

However, it is not simply about funding. With the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we gave local authorities new powers to reduce vacancies in their high streets through high street rental auctions. That will help to create lively high streets with increased footfall and activity that attracts people and businesses, increases pride in place and avoids the long-term presence of vacancies.

The development of strong partnerships, be it between national and local government, or between local businesses and communities, will be vital to the regeneration of our high streets. One such partnership is the high street accelerator programme, which I have the pleasure of leading and which will bring together businesses, residents and community organisations, with their local authority, to develop a long-term vision for revitalising town centres.

In addition, we have introduced significant planning flexibilities so that local decision makers can better manage the use of buildings in town centres and ensure that high streets remain places of commercial and social activity. That includes by converting class E properties; allowing a change of use without the need for individual planning applications; and using permitted development rights to introduce movable structures in pubs, cafés and restaurants, and to allow local authorities to hold outdoor markets. Permitted development also provides freedom to change more premises from commercial to residential use, so that much-needed new homes can be created in high streets and town centres, providing a mix of users, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster led on during her time as leader of Westminster City Council.

Alongside that, as I have mentioned, we are investing in our high streets across the country, with £15 billion of levelling-up funding since 2019 going to communities the length and breadth of the UK, including in Hyndburn and Haslingden, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) has secured more than £50 million for her area. She has undoubtedly been the best MP that her constituency has had. I was pleased to visit it recently to see the historic town hall and the plans for the market hall, where, before serving as the MP, she used to have a stall, if I recall correctly. She is a brilliant champion for her constituents and I am pleased that we are able to help support her area.

Another area we are supporting is Nuneaton, which is also significantly benefiting from Government funding. I know that is particularly welcomed by the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). It is receiving a town deal worth more than £23 million and future high streets funding of more than £13 million, thanks to his advocacy. As part of that funding, we will help to build Grayson Place, which is named after Nuneaton’s famous Larry Grayson. His famous phrase, “Shut that door!”, has a particular significance for me as the MP for Redcar. This is disputed by the Deputy Chief Whip, but the first time Larry Grayson said that was when he was doing a tour in Redcar and the wind from the seafront kept banging the door on Redcar pier—he said “Shut that door!” and so it became. I hope that the good people of Nuneaton will use their vote next week to back their fantastic Conservative council to finish the job and continue to improve their area.

Of course, I could not omit to mention Stoke-on-Trent, which has had not one, not two, but three successful bids for levelling-up funding, as well as a levelling-up partnership, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is keen to see investment in Longton. Stoke-on-Trent has never had such a focus from any Government, and I credit him for all his campaigning as a great MP over the past seven years.

To conclude, this Government are fully committed to breathing new life into our high streets, whether that is through the long-term plan for towns, the high street rental auctions or this Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I appreciate just how much this matters to the communities that we represent. Again, I offer my gratitude to him for introducing this Bill, to the Members who have supported it throughout the entirety of its Commons stages, to the Clerks and to my fab team of officials, who have helped with the Bill. I also pay tribute to the many fantastic council officers, who are often unnamed and unknown but who work day in, day out to improve their communities. The Government are backing this Bill and backing our high streets to navigate this period of change and emerge stronger for it. I look forward to supporting the Bill from the sidelines as it progresses through the other place and eagerly anticipate its becoming law.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If there is a Division later, perhaps after 10 minutes I should say, in Larry Grayson’s memory, “Lock that door!” I might give it a go. [Laughter.] With the leave of the House, I call Jack Brereton.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

All of us have a responsibility to be vigilant about the dangers of extremism. I am grateful to many media outlets for shining a light on extremism, from the BBC to The Times. The hon. Gentleman mentions one particular newspaper headline. He may disagree with it or find it objectionable, but the most important thing to recognise is that a vigorous culture of free speech, sustained by a free and independent press, is a critical part of our democratic culture.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for responding to questions for an hour and 13 minutes.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sure that everybody heard Madam Deputy Speaker’s request for brevity, as a number of Members wish to get in, and we have to accommodate everybody before 6 o’clock.

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

I agree with a large part of what the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said, and with nearly all of what my hon. Friend the Minister said. Where I disagree with the Opposition spokesperson is that I think the Bill is ambitious in what it is trying to achieve, although we would all like it to go further. It is quite remarkable that this is the first major bit of legislation to help leaseholders since 2002—although we have had the Building Safety Act 2022, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and other things, which did some things towards that.

It is remarkable how few people know much about the role of residential leaseholders. They own nothing but the right to live in a home for a period. I declare that I am a leaseholder. I have a flat in my constituency for which there have been no problems and for which the Bill will do neither harm nor good, and I also have another leasehold property. If I happened to gain from the measures, I would give the benefit to a good cause—I am not here for myself; I am here for those who have been suffering for years.

I wish I could be at the Westminster Hall debate on BBC impartiality, but it conflicts with this debate. It is now 20 years since the peace activist and photographer Tom Hurndall was shot by a sniper in Rafah. The subsequent nine months of inquiry by the Israel Defence Forces were shocking. However, I will leave that to the other debate.

On leasehold reform, I believe that we have opportunities—both in the House of Commons and, perhaps more so in the House of Lords—to make significant progress. My hon. Friend the Minister will point out to me the consultation on permitted development rights that started on 13 February. Towards the end of the consultation document, paragraphs 43,44 and 45 appear under the heading:

“Construction of new dwellinghouses on a freestanding block of flats”.

That is a reference to the inexplicable and disastrous Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020—SI 2020 No. 632.

Those emergency covid regulations, accompanied by an economic assessment of which, to put it bluntly, I would have been ashamed were I a better economist, allowed owners, landlords and freeholders of certain blocks to put an extra one or two storeys on top without consulting the existing leaseholders at all. How any Government—let alone one I support—could have done that is beyond my comprehension. There had been a consultation some years before, and the general consensus was, “Don’t do it,” so why has it been done? I hope that people will look at the consultation, which is open until April, answer questions 27 and 28, and give explanations of their own experiences.

A developer tried to put extra floors on top of the St Andrews Gardens building in my constituency. That was turned down flat by the local authority, but its decision was overturned on appeal by the Government inspector. The developer then tried again, advertising for sale flats that do not exist, even though nobody wants them as they will cause significant harm.

My new clause 25, which I am indebted to Liam Spender of St David’s Square in E14 for drafting, says that the landlord or developer will have to pay compensation to leaseholders if the effects on them are harmful. The Minister’s legal advisers may say that the clause is not perfectly drafted, although I think it is pretty good. Even if he cannot accept it now, will he go through the replies to the consultation, have a talk with Members of all parties who represent those affected, and consider whether the Government can bring forward in the House of Lords proposals that would undo the effect of 2020/632 and implement some of the preferred responses to the consultation, to which he may not have time to refer in his winding up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I rise to speak to new clauses 13, 23 and 41, which stand in my name. I wish to place on record my thanks to those right hon. and hon. Members who supported me with my amendments and to the Public Bill Office for assisting with advice on their drafting.

Today’s Bill is important and I think we would all agree that it is long-awaited. I spoke on Second Reading, when I declared that I, like probably many others here, am one of almost 5 million leaseholders in this country. I am also one of the many who has gone through that awfully stressful process of extending a lease—that was prior to my being an MP. What I have learnt since becoming an MP is that the issue of leasehold affects not just London and our great cities, but constituents in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills. It affects people who have bought a house on a leasehold basis and many apartment blocks that were built perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. That is why I have taken such a keen interest in this piece of legislation. Buying a home is the biggest financial commitment that most people will make in their lifetime, but they are probably unaware of some of the complications they may experience later down the line.

I raised many questions on Second Reading and I wrote to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Minister has been very engaged with me, but I gently say to the Department that a bit more engagement with Back-Bench Members would help enormously. That said, I am clear that I want the Bill to succeed, although in common with many other hon. Members I still believe it could and should go further. I will not push my amendments to a vote today, but I want to make a few points in relation to them.

On new clause 13, the prohibition on new leasehold homes within three months of the passage of the Act, I appreciate and welcome what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box. The Government have long been committed to the provisions in that new clause and I have sought clarity about what exactly they intend to do. I have heard welcome news today, but I will continue to press the point about commonhold because that matters. Moving forward, if we are to continue to look at this legislation and get it through this place, we will have to revisit this topic to ensure we get the best for our constituents, whatever type of housing or home they live in.

New clause 23 seeks a report on disadvantage suffered by existing leaseholders. In effect it was the sunset clause I referred to on Second Reading. The extent of the number of leaseholders who started the process of extending their lease during the passage of the Bill and the impact on them is unclear. Many will have been waiting to see the outcome of this legislation. Quite feasibly, that group will include people who have been forced to extend their lease in order to sell their home because, as we know, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a mortgage on a short lease. I am certain some leaseholders will not have been able to wait for the Bill to reach Royal Assent. Such leaseholders risk being seriously disadvantaged, so new clause 23 would take steps to assess and remedy any unfairness by considering issues such as marriage value, legal costs and other charges. I do not think we fully appreciate the size of this group compared to the number of people who will extend their leasehold after Royal Assent.

Similarly, new clause 41 seeks to redress the imbalance and unfairness of marriage value for those leaseholders who extended their leases many years ago or prior to the Bill passing through this place. By seeking to produce a report on disadvantage due to payment of marriage value, I hope we can better understand the extent of some of challenges around a system that, as we have heard today, is feudal, difficult to navigate and has disadvantaged many leaseholders over the years. It is important that we do not lose sight of the need to address the issue of marriage value.

The fourth area of concern is ground rent. I did not table an amendment on this issue but I will touch on it again. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have mentioned it. The Minister was clear in his response to me, but we need to continue to push forward for change.

I will support the Bill and I welcome the steps that have been taken. However, from the many examples that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have highlighted today and the examples we have all seen sent to our inboxes by constituents, particularly around the challenges of service charge, it is clear that we need to go further. I will continue to gently nudge the Minister; he is nodding his head. He does a really good job and I am certain he gets the issue, but let us continue to work together for the benefit of our constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have nine Members trying to catch my eye, so if people speak for about five minutes, that will allow everyone to get in roughly equally. There has been some slippage, I can see that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention.

I will conclude by saying that I support the amendments that would require professionalisation of the industry— that would be very sensible and consistent with other legislation that the House has passed. I also support new clause 5 and amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook); new clause 39, tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); and new clause 25, tabled by the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The Bill goes some way towards providing the protection that we need, but it needs to go much further to protect freeholders from rogue developers and estate management companies. I urge the Government to take that away and do more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To protect the last six speakers and protect ministerial time as well, there is now a five-minute limit on speeches, which will give the Front Benchers sufficient time to respond.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It was a great pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee on this Bill. We had a great debate, and there was actually a lot of agreement across the Committee Room. These are deeply Conservative reforms, championed by none other than Mrs Thatcher, starting in 1965, which she continued to do throughout opposition and during her premiership.

I gently say to Opposition Members, of whatever party, that they must not fall into the trap of making this a political football. They must engage with the seriousness and complexity of these reforms, in part because, as we have heard, they did very little to advance these very significant reforms during their own time in office. I suspect that they backed away from it because of the very significant legal challenges they would have faced, as we ourselves will no doubt face. Pretending they do not exist is not a serious position. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are aware of my comments, that we must not buckle, but must continue to take this forward.

It is great to see the package of amendments laid by the Government, particularly new clause 42, which is a ban on leasehold houses. I want the Minister to think carefully about how he will address the inevitable imbalance in the creation of a two-tier system, in which some people will have the freehold of their house, but some will not. There is an additional imbalance between flats in our urban areas and new freehold houses. That point was very well made by James Vitali in a Policy Exchange report. I am slightly worried about the omission from this of retirement properties, so perhaps the Minister could return to that.

In Committee, I spoke about the need to truly move towards a commonhold system. I think the Opposition’s new clause 11 is something of that nature. I very much hope that, as the Bill goes through completing its stages, the Government—here or in the other place—can look at that suggestion. I think we do need to set out the future legislative scaffolding for our fifth term in office, and to build on the work we have done so that we can finally get rid of this leasehold system.

Other Members have mentioned a lot of the points I would have made about shared services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that, and it is one of my concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has done a fantastic job in talking about the lack of adoption by local authorities. There is also new clause 7, which I know is again an Opposition amendment, and new clauses 1 and 2. This problem is not going to go away. It is a blight on many homeowners in Redditch, and it also goes to the heart of our planning system. We really do need to look at that; we cannot pretend that it is going to solve itself.

I thank the Minister for writing to me about one of my concerns, which is litigation costs. I think new clause 3 looks at that. He has reassured me that what is in this Bill will go the distance in ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unjust litigation costs by their landlord. That is one of the cases highlighted by Liam Spender and many others. These are hugely complex issues, but we must tackle them.

I want to see ground rents reduced to a peppercorn. It is pure extortion, and a feudal relic from medieval times when people were serfs and worked the land. We should not have this in 2024, or in any year. I refuse to believe that there is not a way, through the wit of man and the considerable intelligence of Ministers on the Front Bench, to solve the issue, perhaps where some financial assets are held in pension funds. I do not buy the pretence of that incredible con artist Mr Steve Whybrow and his outfit that somehow we are robbing pensioners. I would urge anybody with an interest in this debate to look at the genuine pensioners who are fighting for the right to have pure enjoyment of their own properties, which they richly deserve after a lifetime of working.

I will make my final remarks on forfeiture: it must go. The forfeiture of a long lease cannot be right. It cannot be right that a freeholder can hold this nuclear bomb over somebody such as Dennis Jackson, a pensioner, of Plantation Wharf. He disputed a £6,000 service charge, which led to an £80,000 legal bill, and he had his £800,000 flat forfeited during a 10-minute hearing at Wandsworth court. I thank LEASE for all the work it has done to help him. That just simply cannot be right, and we must address it. I want to see us finally finishing the job that Mrs Thatcher started when she was Opposition Housing spokesman in 1965. We must finish that job, and I thank the Minister for all the work he has done so far.

Financial Distress in Local Authorities

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

Select Committee statement (Order, this day)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Clive Betts, the Select Committee Chair, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions about it. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I should also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

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

It is a great pleasure to make this statement on behalf of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee about its report “Financial distress in local authorities”. Let me first thank the Leader of the House for tabling the business motion that has allowed the statement to be made. Our Committee Clerk is excited about the fact that we have apparently set a procedural precedent today; I was certainly not aware of that, but I am now. Let me also thank the Backbench Business Committee for originally providing the time for the statement.

Our inquiry looked into the extent of the funding gap in local authorities’ finances, and some of the main spending challenges that they face: social care, special educational needs and homelessness. The report brings attention to key issues ahead of the upcoming local government financial settlement. It makes recommendations not only for urgent action to resolve the immediate crisis, but larger reforms for the Government to consider after the next election.

Everyone recognises that the financial crisis in local authorities across England is out of control. In recent months an alarming number of them have issued section 114 notices—admissions that their spending is exceeding their income—thus effectively declaring bankruptcy. In the last six years, eight authorities have issued such notices; in the previous 18 years, none did. It is no longer the case that a small number of individual councils with particular issues are in financial distress. We are now seeing widespread financial distress across large parts of local government, and the situation is only getting worse. The Committee has heard evidence from the Local Government Association that one fifth of councils may be in financial distress within the next year.

At the heart of this crisis is a multi-billion-pound funding gap. The income available to local authorities from council tax, retained business rates and government grants has not kept pace with the increased demand for their services and the effect of inflation. As a result, the Local Government Association estimates that authorities face a funding gap of £4 billion over the next two years to maintain services at their current levels.

Witnesses have told us that the current funding system is “broken” and “not fit for purpose”. Successive Governments since 2010 have reduced the level of central Government grants awarded to local authorities by about 50%. This has been partly offset by a 20% increase in council tax, which has therefore led to an overall reduction in local authority core spending power of 26% in real terms between 2010 and 2021.

In the short term, local authorities need immediate additional funding. Our report recommends that the Government must include additional funding in the local government finance settlement for 2024-25 to fill the gap. Last week the Government announced £600 million of extra funding, and I give credit to the Minister, who has been assiduous in listening to the views of Members on this subject. However, although those measures are welcome, they are not sufficient.

Our report recognises that the Government have recently begun consultations on other methods of increasing the funds available to local authorities. We have cautiously welcomed the fact that they are considering giving authorities additional capital flexibilities to fund day-to-day costs, but we have recommended that those additional flexibilities should be considered carefully and limited to extending flexibilities over invest-to-save activity. We do not want to store up problems for future years.

Our report also recommends other ways in which the Government can improve funding for local authorities in the medium term. We have repeated the recommendation, which our Committee first made in 2021, that the Government must urgently reform council tax. This would involve undertaking a revaluation of properties and introducing additional council tax bands. Finally, we have once again called for the Government to implement the business rates reset and fair funding review, to which they committed themselves in 2016 but which they have yet to deliver, and to reintroduce multi-year settlements.

Our inquiry asked witnesses what had caused the sharp rise in council expenditures. It identified three particular areas where costs have risen significantly: adults’ and children’s social care, special educational needs, and homelessness. On adults’ social care, the increasingly complex needs of a changing population continue to drive up costs, and long-term workforce shortages and inflationary pressures have made the position worse. As the Committee recommended back in 2022, the Government need to recognise that local authorities will need several billion pounds of additional funding each year to continue to deliver and improve adult social care, and should plan a sustainable mechanism to deliver this funding that does not simply rely on increasing council tax.

On children’s social care, our inquiry found that councils are facing rising demand for residential care placements and a poorly functioning market for providing them. That has driven significant cost increases. Our report recommends an urgent comprehensive reform of the children’s social care system. As part of that, the Government should help local authorities consider greater collaboration so that between them they can deliver more children’s care services directly, instead of through private suppliers. Our inquiry also found that local authorities face significant financial pressures in providing services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities—SEND. The number of education, health and care plans has “skyrocketed” since they were introduced in 2014, which has significantly increased demand for more expensive forms of SEND provision and home-to-school transport. Funding is provided to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant, but it is not enough to meet the demand and does not cover home-to-school transport.

The Government have already been forced to take temporary measures to prevent SEND costs from forcing a large number of councils into bankruptcy. In 2020, the Government introduced a “statutory override”, allowing local authorities to exclude any deficits on their DSG spending from their main revenue budgets. Local government faces a potential cliff edge of section 114 notices whenever the statutory override comes to an end. The question is: will the Treasury write off that extra borrowing when the time comes? Our report recommends, therefore, that in the short term the Government should provide additional funding for home-to-school transport. In the long term, there needs to be a fundamental reform of the EHCPs, based on a cross-Government review.

Finally, our report makes it clear that rising homelessness has increased costs for councils. A big cause of the increase has been the Government’s decision to freeze local housing allowance rates in April 2020, so our report welcomes the Government’s recent announcement that they will increase local housing allowance rates from April 2024. However, it also raises concerns about the Government’s decision to then re-freeze the rates in 2026. Instead, we recommend that local housing allowance should be retained at at least the 30th percentile of local market rents. In the longer term, the best solution, as the Committee has recommended repeatedly, is to build more social housing, which will always be cheaper than paying for temporary accommodation.

These problems require a long-term solution. That is why the Committee has made recommendations in this report for whichever Government are elected after the next election. The next Government, regardless of their political persuasion, must embark on a fundamental review of the systems of local authority funding and local taxation, both council tax and business rates. In doing so, they must be clear about what local authorities are for and how they can best co-ordinate with delivery of the Government’s wider objectives. We have recommended that the next Government should consider many options, which may include land value taxes and others, and wider fiscal devolution. They must also explore all options for reforming the funding and delivery of social care services, to address the underlying causes of the acute funding and delivery pressures currently faced by local authorities. It is my hope that the need we have identified for additional funding will be properly reflected in the local government financial settlement we will debate next week, and that our other recommendations will be carefully considered by this Government and whoever form the Government after the next election. I commend this report to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much for your statement, Mr Betts. I call Bob Blackman. I intend to call the Front Benchers at the end, if everybody is happy with that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for what he said. Clearly, one problem is that adult social services, children’s social services and homelessness services are all demand led, so it is very difficult for a local authority to predict the number of people involved and how much money will be required. Does he agree that what the Government and the Department need to look at now is how we can enable local authorities to have a pool of money nationally that could be used by a particular local authority when these demand-led services have dramatically increased the burden on it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what owners of XL bully dogs who have missed the registration deadline for genuine reasons can do to ensure that they keep in line with guidance. A constituent who missed the deadline contacted my office today. They were unable to get their dog neutered in time for genuine reasons. The advice of the Secretary of State was to register as soon as possible; however, the Government’s website says that the service is now closed. I seek your advice on how things can be corrected, and the website can be reopened, if that was the intention of the Secretary of State, so that dog owners who want to do the right thing and register their pet can do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and her forward notice of it. Clearly, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ remarks, but at the same time we want them to be accurate. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what she has had to say, and will ensure that the Secretary of State has it brought to his attention. At the same, given that she is a diligent Member of Parliament, I am sure that she will bring it directly to the notice of Ministers.

[Simon Hoare]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard what the hon. Lady said. It is a serious point. I will ensure that my officials raise it with the office of the Secretary of State this afternoon to ensure that the situation is clarified. It is a sensitive issue, and her constituent and others will want to have clarity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I cannot do it quicker than that, can I?

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

You have set the bar now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is a very high bar. I should quit now. Thank you very much everybody.

Proposed British Jewish History Month

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this debate. I learned a great deal from listening to the contributions of Members from across the House today. The variety and richness of them reflects a lot of what we are talking about: the richness of contribution to British society.

That is the point I wish to start with: the British Jewish community has made a remarkable contribution to the prosperity of our nation. In the face, sadly, of growing hostility abroad and, shamefully, here at home, it is high time that we as a nation celebrate its part in our national story. So I wish to do two things in the few minutes available to me: highlight the remarkable contribution made by the British Jewish community in Aberconwy today—in doing that I wish to thank Professor Nathan Abrams of Bangor University and the team at Llandudno museum for their important work in tracing the history of the Jewish residents of north Wales and Aberconwy; and raise and then quickly dismiss an objection that we can anticipate to founding a British Jewish history month.

In Aberconwy, although Jewish residents have never numbered more than a few hundred individuals, they have played a prominent role in the recent history of our community. Sadly, Aberconwy is not without its reminders of a darker past. Conwy’s castle and walls were, of course, built by Edward I, who was notable for both his oppression of the Welsh and his expulsion of Jewish subjects in 1290. Primarily arriving in Llandudno in the Victorian era, the new Jewish community was soon a key part of the area’s booming economy and was actively involved in the development and safeguarding of our local culture.

Families such as the Croops, Gubays, Wartskis and Blairmans founded shops that have become fixtures of our high streets, visible to this day, with the latter two founding international antique businesses that continue to prosper. We can also thank the Wartskis for the synagogue in Llandudno, which opened in 1909. It is a testament to this legacy that modern-day Llandudno has the pleasure of welcoming a large number of Hasidic families each year. In more recent times, the first woman mayor of Aberconwy was Jewish—Vicki Lazar was elected in 1978. Most recently, in a welcome twist of history, in 2012 the care of those battlements in Conwy that King Edward I built was voted into the competent hands of Cedric Rigal, the first Jewish constable and mayor of Conwy, with a rabbi offering a prayer at the inauguration.

However, in making the case for celebrating and formally recognising such contributions in Aberconwy and across the UK, we can anticipate an objection, albeit one raised in good faith. In an era of increasingly divisive identitarian politics, it may well be asked: will such recognition encourage British people to think of themselves, and one another, in terms of ethnic or religious group identity, and does this not risk compounding, rather than easing, division?

As the MP for a bilingual constituency, a proud Welshman and Brit, I think that that is a profound misunderstanding of identity. Our British identity is not totalising; it does not demand the erosion of the regional and religious identities that make up our nation. We are privileged in Britain to inherit a nation that evolved long before liberal nationalist revolutions of the 19th century, when nations such as France, Italy and Germany were engaged in assertive state-led nation building. In contrast, Britain emerged slowly, as networks of kin, friendship and trade bound together the destinies of the peoples of our islands. In many European states, for example, standardised education was seized on as a means to erode regional identity, yet here—I speak of north Wales in this case—the fierce independence and plurality of educations have represented distinct religious and philosophical traditions. In north Wales, I would count our fierce tradition of non-conformism in that too.

When a community’s story has become intertwined with that of the nation, it becomes part of the story of Britain, and such is the story of British Jews. It is significant and it is part of our story that deserves to be celebrated. In a world in which ethnic grievances are increasingly and easily stoked for political capital, here is a story of resilience and success. The British Jewish contribution to the arts, literature, commerce and science of the UK has enriched and elevated our national life, here and in Aberconwy, and it has improved the condition of humanity the world over. This story should serve to inspire people of all backgrounds. For that reason, I support the motion put before us today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We move on to the Front-Bench contributions of six, eight and eight minutes, although I will not put the clock on. Please could the Minister leave a couple of minutes for the final words from Nickie Aiken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend outlines another example of the hugely important contribution the British Jewish community have made to our freedom over so many decades.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a hugely important point about how the vast contribution made is often not obvious. Like the challenges she may have had in her home city, I had challenges linking it to my home constituency where I grew up—it has a very small Jewish community. Having looked at some of the history from Derbyshire, it was heartening to hear that, just 20 years ago, when a small group of people from Derby at the other side of the county found in the archives that the citizens of Derby had paid an amount of money in the 12th century to stop British Jews from living there, they compensated the British Jewish community by the equivalent amount in 2002 so that the edict could be removed. Such acts of kindness and recognition show that what has been called a challenging history can be acknowledged and worked through, even in places where there are not large Jewish populations, such as Derbyshire.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) made the important point that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), who does so much on this hugely important subject and who was the genesis of the important debate we had on Tuesday. I know that she and Lord Austin from the other place were keen to acknowledge a gentleman who is in the Public Gallery today—Peter Madeley—a former reporter in the west midlands who has done so much over so many years to report on important issues for the Jewish community.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), as I have already mentioned, gave us some very interesting references to the wrestling community, and pointed out the hugely important history, culture and contribution to Britain from the Jewish community and how deep and broad that contribution is. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a hugely important point about the challenges that the community currently face. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) spoke about the importance of shared heritage and the ability to reconcile that in a way that works for everybody, irrespective of faith, culture, ethnicity or background.

Finally, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We began our electoral journey together in the same place in Westminster in 2006. I had the privilege of representing a historically very Jewish area of Maida Vale, known in the 1880s as “New Jerusalem”, which contains the Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, and we both had the privilege of serving alongside such luminaries as Sir Simon Milton, Melvyn Caplan, Daniel Astaire and the former Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councillor Louise Hyams, who is also in the Public Gallery.

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been a privilege to be here and to hear about the contributions the Jewish community have made to our country over so many years, decades and centuries. This Government are wholly committed to honouring, celebrating and safeguarding the security of our Jewish communities. That is a commitment that I know everybody shares, wherever they sit in this place, a commitment that we must work together to uphold and a commitment that is demonstrated by our support for the debate today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It has been a privilege and honour for me to chair this debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

It was a pleasure to allow that intervention.

It is absolutely right that we continue to educate ourselves and future generations on antisemitism and the holocaust, and we will be marking the holocaust later this month, but it is equally important—or perhaps more important—that we highlight and celebrate the achievements and contributions of the Jewish community. The Jewish story in Britain is a positive and a negative one. It is a history of human suffering, of human perseverance and of human strength. Now more than ever, it is important that British Jews know that their incredible contribution to this country is valued and that the history of antisemitism is understood.

I take this opportunity to thank the very special rabbi in my constituency, Rabbi Daniel Epstein of Western Marble Arch Synagogue; I am sure he is not impressed by my Hebrew in this debate, but he provided me with the text from the Torah that I repeated in my speech. The Jewish community in the Cities of London and Westminster and across the nation is very important to me and has been very supportive of me, and has led me to believe that it is now more important than ever that we have a British Jewish history month.

I look forward to working with this Government, who I believe are very positive towards the suggestion, and with Jewish community to make the proposal a reality. We must celebrate the British Jewish community and we must have a British Jewish history month.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been an MP for 31 years, and it was not until one of my researchers asked for time off because there was a Jewish holiday, and then the other one asked for time off for the Jewish holiday, and then the third one came to ask, that I appreciated that all my members of staff were Jewish. I am incredibly grateful for the contribution that they have made to my office personally. Yet again, this debate demonstrates how good the House is when it comes together.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls for the creation of a British Jewish History Month.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

King’s consent signified.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Keir Starmer has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As everybody knows, the debate will come to a conclusion at 6.45 pm. A number of people are trying to catch my eye, so I am thinking that speeches should last not much longer than three minutes, to be frank, depending on the contributions of the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are eight Members standing, so let us start with a limit of four minutes.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Again, as I said on Second Reading and on Report, I speak with a heavy heart and in some dismay, but I tell those on my Front Bench that I will be voting against the Bill this evening.

This Bill obviously comes at a dreadful time, as we mourn the deaths of so many Israelis in heinous circumstances on 7 October and the deaths of so many Palestinians subsequently, many of whom still lie under the rubble. The fact that we in this House would seek to legislate against non-violent protest in such an illiberal and draconian way seems to me tragic at this particular point in time.

As the Secretary of State knows, there are broadly three areas in which I and other colleagues attempted to amend the Bill and have concerns. The first area is, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, the separate identification in the Bill of Israel, and its conflation with the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. We believe that contravenes our undertakings at the United Nations and, indeed, in international law, which of course means that the Bill will spend a lot of time in the courts, if it eventually sees the light of day. At the same time, that is a cause of great dismay to our allies in the Arab world, who of course we need at the moment more than ever to join us in seeking peace in the dreadful conflict taking place in the middle east. That we should undermine our own status as fair dealers, as it were, in that part of the world seems to me an unforced error.

The second area of serious concern is obviously the impact on free speech. Again as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, it seems to me incredible that we are putting elected officials and others in a position where if they just stand up in certain circumstances and say they disagree with the law, they will be committing a criminal act. It seems to me an incredibly illiberal and backward step that we would strike a blow against pluralism in that way. The Bill could stand without those restrictions on free speech, and as the Secretary of State will know, we attempted to amend it to remove them, but that attempt was rebuffed.

The third area is the sheer scale of the Bill’s impact and the number of organisations that will be drawn into it. It is not just the local government pension fund, of which I am a member, but also every university in the land and private sector companies that perform a public service of some kind and are contractors to the Government that will be drawn in. That is important because, as the Secretary of State will know, this subject is very litigious. There are lawyers sympathetic to Israel and those sympathetic to Palestine. From the Secretary of State’s speech, it seems that the Bill is aimed squarely at that particular conflict in this world. Lawyers on both sides will gear up, and an industry will arise to attack, defend, analyse and scrutinise every decision, and all these bodies will have to take significant internal legal advice to deal with it as well. Subjecting them all to this enormous burden seems to me disproportionate to the problem that the Government are trying to address.

Finally, my greatest concern is for the impact on British Jewry. As the Secretary of State has said, he is trying to bring this Bill in to deal with the growth in antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but my view is that the Bill will play entirely into the hands of the antisemites. I imagine that this Bill will be manna to those rotten social media groups and WhatsApp groups that espouse conspiracy theories about Israel and the Jewish community. They will see this, as Jonathan Freedland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call the SNP spokesperson, with no time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There will be a three-minute limit until the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I shall be calling the Secretary of State to wind up the debate no later than 6.42 pm, and the Division will take place at 6.45 pm.

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

As we have already heard, the Bill is largely an explicit reaction to the success of Leicester City Council in defeating legal attempts in 2018 to force it to end its boycott of goods from illegal Israeli settlements until Israel complies with international law and ends its illegal occupation. Arguably, Leicester’s stance has been thoroughly vindicated by events over the last few months, during which Israel has launched what South Africa and many United Nations bodies have called “genocidal acts” on Gaza, which have also killed hundreds in the west bank and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while protecting Israeli settlers as they beat and even kill Palestinians trying to go about their peaceful lives.

While Leicester and other councils have been shown to be doing the right thing, the Government have found themselves yet again on the wrong side of the issue, backing the oppressor against the oppressed and giving the Israeli regime licence to kill tens of thousands. Many of my constituents back the council’s actions and bitterly oppose Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, and the illegal settlements whose proliferation has only accelerated. The Bill would prevent Leicester and councils like it from carrying out the will of the voters who elected them, tying the hands of the principled and enforcing the will of a Government who have shown that they prize geopolitical and economic ends above the lives of tens of thousands of innocent children, women, teachers, doctors, aid workers and journalists. It is a Bill designed to hobble democracy and decency. It subjugates local British democracy to the actions and wishes of a foreign occupying power. It is clearly also intended to circumvent the will of the court, given that Leicester comprehensively won its case against those trying to overturn its boycott.

The Conservatives appear to have little regard for South Africa’s forensically compiled case against Israel, which has invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at the International Court of Justice. Tomorrow that case will begin to be heard at The Hague. A boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign lasting almost three decades was a vital factor in the bringing down of South African apartheid. South Africa knows all about the power of such a peaceful but resolute campaign, and is uniquely well placed to bring a case to the International Court of Justice, invoking the genocide convention against Israel. However, despite having only six weeks ago appended their signature to Gambia’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice against Myanmar, specifically because of Myanmar’s treatment of children—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I oppose this anti-boycott Bill on several points. It is difficult to see its timing as anything other than a cynical move by the UK Government. The Secretary of State talks about support for community cohesion and a peaceful two-state solution, but this Bill does nothing to achieve either. Instead, it will seriously curtail our civil liberties and undermine devolution. If the volume of correspondence I have received on this Bill is any indication, the people of Glasgow, as ever, see right through the Tories.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned the granting of the freedom of the city of Glasgow to Nelson Mandela. In 1986, Glasgow District Council renamed St George’s Place as Nelson Mandela Place as a mark of the city’s solidarity with Nelson Mandela, who was still imprisoned at the time. The point was that the South African consulate was located on the street and was forced to use an address bearing the name of South Africa’s most high-profile political prisoner.

This act of international resistance would simply not have been possible if this legislation had been in place in 1986 as, at that time, the UK Government were still refusing to condemn apartheid. Who would want to speak with one voice when that was what the UK Government were saying on Scotland’s behalf? Indeed, even discussion of such an act would have been unlikely to take place under clause 4’s gagging effect. According to Liberty:

“In practice, a public body seeking to comply with the Bill is likely to take steps to distance itself from anything which suggests that it holds any political or moral views as to the conduct of foreign states, for fear that it could be found to be in breach of the ban or the related prohibition on statements.”

This legislation will undoubtedly alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers and should be opposed by all of those who value devolution.

The provisions in this Bill are disproportionate and, frankly, unnecessary. The Bill hands sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and the Treasury to request information from the devolved Administrations to assess whether a breach of the boycott ban or gagging clause has occurred and to impose a compliance notice. This is a huge overstep. There are already significant protections in Scottish procurement legislation for bidders from countries where a relevant trade agreement exists. It is not clear what problem the UK Government are trying to fix with this Bill. Worse, the Bill makes it unlawful for Scottish Ministers even to publish a statement that they would have acted in a certain way if not curtailed by these measures. The legislative consent memorandum published by the Deputy First Minister describes this as an “assault on democratic expression”.

As we head into an election year, the Prime Minister is affirming that the legacy he and his predecessors will leave behind will be one of a democracy in tatters, faith in public institutions annihilated and our hard-won rights stripped bare. It is increasingly the case that the only hope left for people in Scotland to protect our democratic freedoms is the hope of an independent Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Miriam Cates, to speak until 6.42 pm.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I support this legislation, but I find it very sad that we need it. When I first heard about the holocaust as a child at school, I was shocked. I was shocked at the scale of the evil, the horror of what happened to the Jews and the fact that it could have been allowed to happen. As an adult, I have visited Yad Vashem, Auschwitz and the forests in Poland where thousands upon thousands of Jews, including children, were murdered in cold blood by Nazi soldiers because they were Jews.

No one walks away from those sites in any doubt about the potential consequences of antisemitism, but one thing I was sure of before 7 October was that that would never happen again. Surely the world—this country, at least—is alive to the consequences of anti-Jewish attitudes, to the importance of not tolerating antisemitism and to the need for Israel, an Israel that has the same right to exist and to defend itself as any other sovereign nation. But now I am not so convinced that we have learned the lessons of antisemitism. Polling shows shocking levels of support for Hamas among young people here and in the United States. That is being driven by social media, but it is also being fostered—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. With the leave of the House, I call the Secretary of State.

Isle of Wight Local Government Finance

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his uber efficiency in organising such a trip. My Speedos will be dusted off—don’t get excited, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I hope to share a 99 with him at some bracing seaside venue. In sincerity, I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to that hugely.

To draw my remarks to some form of conclusion, I hear the representations that my hon. Friend has made. In turn, I hope he has heard my total commitment from the Treasury Bench to studying with great care, as my predecessor did and as my officials do, all and any submissions made by him and his council. We hope to arrive at a circumstance and solution that works for the people of the Isle of Wight.

Government support to the Isle of Wight, as my hon. Friend was kind enough to reference in his remarks, is manifest outwith the local government finance settlement. We are investing in key capital projects across the Island, as part of our aim to level up all parts of the country. The fantastic and magnificent work of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) is testimony to that. In recent funding announcements, the Island has benefited from £20 million for the town partnerships endowment, which will support the town of Ryde in the development of a new long-term plan; £5.8 million in round 1 levelling-up funding to the East Cowes marine hub; and, only this week, £13.6 million from the levelling-up fund to deliver the Island green link, providing cycle and walking infrastructure extending from Ryde in the east to Yarmouth in the west of the Island.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. While I am not able to give him the figures in pounds, shillings and pence, I hope I have been able to persuade him of the seriousness with which I take his case and with which I will approach this issue over the coming weeks and months. I am committed, as are the Government, to doing as much as we possibly can to ensure our fantastic councils, not just in the Isle of Wight but across the United Kingdom, can work alongside us and deliver for all of our constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been to the Isle of Wight and it is beyond glorious, so the Minister and his Speedos are in for a real treat.

Question put and agreed to.