Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 1. If Lords amendment 1 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal.

Clause 13

Requirements for ratepayers etc to provide information

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

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 and 3.

[Lee Rowley]

It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this place after its positive reception, both here initially and in the other place more recently. Reforming business rates was a manifesto commitment, and having concluded our review of rates, the Bill seeks to deliver a fairer and more effective business rates system.

The amendments that the Government invite the House to support today are minor and do not change the policy intentions of the Bill, which we have debated before in this place. Two amendments deal with the penalties regime for the new duty on ratepayers in clause 13—they are designed to ensure that the penalties system is fairer—and the third is a minor and technical amendment that removes some obsolete wording as a result of another part of the Bill. I will deal with each amendment briefly.

Lords amendment 1 concerns the civil penalties that the Valuation Office Agency can apply if ratepayers do not provide information under the duty. These include an additional daily penalty of £60, which may only be applied if a ratepayer persistently fails to meet their obligations following an initial penalty notice. The Government have listened to the views of the experts in the other place and agreed to create an additional safeguard for ratepayers by capping the financial value of penalties that can be imposed under this provision. Daily penalties will be capped at £1,800, equivalent to 30 days’ worth of penalties. This change will also bring the valuation duty in line with the separate duty to provide His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with a taxpayer reference number, for which a cap on penalties is already in place.

Lords amendment 2 concerns the penalty for the criminal offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement, an offence that is subject to higher penalties than simply failing to comply. The Bill prescribes that for a higher penalty to be applied, the VOA must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has made the false statement knowingly or recklessly. Having reflected, we have recognised that we need to apply the same burden of proof to the procedure on appeal. The amendment therefore provides that the valuation tribunal must remit a penalty unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. This provides additional protection for ratepayers.

Finally, Lords amendment 3 is a minor and technical change to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as a consequential effect of the provisions in the Bill concerning business rates multipliers. This is simply a drafting correction to improve the clarity of the statute book, and the Government do not foresee any practical effect.

The Government invite the House to agree to three minor amendments that were unanimously supported in the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 2 refine and improve the compliance framework for the new information duty, and Lords amendment 3 is a minor consequential change to improve the clarity of the statute book. I commend them to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front Bencher.

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

I am pleased to respond to these three Lords amendments on behalf of the Opposition. Clause 13 of the Bill introduces new duties on ratepayers to provide information to the Valuation Office Agency in order to support digitisation and a shorter revaluation cycle. It also introduces penalties to promote compliance and establishes an associated appeal system.

Through the Bill, ratepayers will initially face a penalty for failing to comply with the new duties the Bill introduces. If, having received that initial penalty, the ratepayer continues not to comply for a further 30 days, they will be liable for an additional penalty of £60 per day. As we heard from the Minister, Lords amendment 1 caps the total charge arising from that additional penalty at £1,800, equivalent to 30 days’ worth of daily fines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said on Second Reading, we are aware of concerns relating to the new duty and the associated penalties from those representing shops, and small shops in particular. Although I doubt that all the concerns of those representative organisations and their members have been addressed by the Government, we realise that this limit on the level of the penalty may help to protect ratepayers from much larger charges while still supporting the Valuation Office Agency’s move toward frequent revaluations, which we support. On that basis, we will not be opposing its inclusion in the Bill.

Through clause 13, the Bill also introduces a new criminal penalty, which applies if a person makes a false statement while purporting to comply with the new duties it introduces. The Bill sets out that the Valuation Office Agency will decide whether an offence has been committed, and its decision may be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for England. As originally drafted, the Bill permits the tribunal to remit such a penalty when it is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person had knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. Lords amendment 2 would require, rather than merely permit, the tribunal to remit the penalty in such circumstances. We believe that the amendment is sensible, so we will not be opposing its inclusion in the Bill.

Finally, Lords amendment 3 makes a technical change to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, omitting section 140(2)(b) of that Act. That section, which refers to Ministers making separate estimates of rateable value for England and Wales, has become obsolete as a result of clause 15 of the Bill, which makes a separate provision about the calculation of multipliers for England. As this is essentially a drafting amendment, we will not be opposing it either.

I am tempted to talk at much greater length about Labour’s plans to scrap the current system of business rates, replacing it with a system of business property tax that rebalances the burden of business property taxation away from the high street and retail firms towards online tech giants. However, I realise that that may be out of scope and that time is tight, so I will simply confirm our intention not to oppose any of these three amendments.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Economic impact assessment for Wales—

“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on the economy in Wales.”

New clause 3—Assessment of the impact of the Act on the provision of food compliant with religious dietary beliefs and on the prevention of discrimination—

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a statement on their assessment of the impact of the Act on—

(a) the procurement of food meeting religious dietary beliefs, and

(b) the prevention of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.”

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But subsection (2) does not have effect in relation to a decision which falls within the competency of Senedd Cymru unless Senedd Cymru has passed a resolution granting its consent to the application of that subsection to such decisions.”

This amendment would require the consent of Senedd Cymru for the Bill to apply to decisions within the sphere of Welsh devolved legislative competence.

Amendment 26, page 1, line 5, leave out

“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”

and insert “must not act”.

This amendment, and Amendment 27, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 36, page 1, line 6, leave out from “would” to “was” in line 7, and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 35, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7 and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 27, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment, and Amendment 26, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 37, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.

Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply to decisions of Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would remove decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Amendment 18, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 19 and 20, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.

(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—

(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and

(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.

(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section

(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”

This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on the Government specifying Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights as a country or territory to which the prohibition on boycotts does not apply, meaning they are treated just as all other countries and territories.

Amendment 21, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment would remove the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 13, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on a person publishing a statement indicating that they would have acted in a way prohibited by clause 1 if it were legal to do so.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) This section does not apply to—

(a) a local authority,

(b) an elected mayor of a local authority

(c) a mayor for the area of a combined authority,

(d) the Mayor of London,

(e) the London Assembly

(f) the Scottish Parliament, or

(g) Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment would exempt elected bodies from the prohibition on making public statements indicating that they intend to, or would intend to if it were lawful, act in a way that would contravene section 1.

Amendment 28, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.

Amendment 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out “, or is about to make”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 30 to 33, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 12, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 31, page 5, line 15, leave out “, or is about to publish,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 32, page 5, line 18, leave out “, or is likely to contravene,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 38, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to the end of line 41.

This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.

Amendment 33, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply in relation to a fund investment decision made by such a manager if the decision has been approved by a majority of those voting in a ballot of the members of the fund; and section 4 does not apply to any statement—

(a) made for the purpose of preparing for or explaining the purpose of such a ballot;

(b) concerning a decision which has been approved by such a ballot.”

This amendment would allow a local government pension fund to act in a way prohibited by clause 1 if the decision to do so is approved by a majority of scheme members, and would prevent statements about or following such a ballot being prohibited by clause 4.

Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 20, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“3A Section 1 does not apply to—

(a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;

(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;

(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”

This amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with clause 1.

Amendment 6, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to conduct which it is the position of His Majesty’s Government represents a breach of international law.”

This amendment would permit decisions which would otherwise be in breach of clause 1 if they are taken in response to conduct which the Government considers to be a breach of international law.

Amendment 17, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the purpose of the decision is to prevent violations of international law including the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the imposition of collective punishment on civilian populations, forced transfer of civilians, and other acts which may constitute war crimes.”

Amendment 22, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 8, page 15, line 22, at end insert “, environmental protection, environmental targets, environmental treaties or environmental law (as defined by the Environment Act 2021).”

This amendment would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) reduces the level of environmental protection, including in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) caused, or had the potential to cause, harm to the natural environment, including the life and health of—

(i) plants, wild animals and other living organisms,

(ii) their habitats, or

(iii) land (except buildings or other structures), air and water,

and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”

This amendment extends the definition of environment misconduct to include damage regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.

Amendment 10, page 15, line 29, at end insert “and the welfare of animals”

This amendment would add conduct causing, or having the potential to cause, significant harm to the welfare of animals to the types of conduct which constitute environmental misconduct and to which regard may therefore be had without contravening section 1.

Amendment 11, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) The conduct referenced in sub-paragraph (3) includes conduct which amounts to—

(a) an offence under section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and

(b) an infringement or contravention of any of the requirements or prohibitions in Schedule 1 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of “welfare of animals” for the purpose of Amendment 10.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to the use of fossil fuels.”

This amendment would allow for a public body to consider the use of fossil fuels when taking certain economic decisions.

Amendment 23, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 24, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 25, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”

I call Anum Qaisar.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I beg the hon. Member’s pardon—Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgive you for that after your excellent address to the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus last night; it was an excellent event.

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar). I indicate now that I will be looking to divide the House on amendment 28, to which I will confine most of my remarks. However, many in this House are deeply disappointed at what the Government are doing in proceeding with this Bill. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said on Monday,

“now is not the time.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 611.]

Let me say at the outset that we all condemn the killing of innocent civilians. We do condemn Hamas and their acts of terror on 7 October, and Hamas must release all hostages. We must equally recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it is legitimate to question the actions of the Israeli Government. It is perfectly legitimate to call for a ceasefire to address that crisis and let humanitarian aid flow in to save the lives of innocent Palestinian people.

There are vastly more people around these islands who are perplexed by the Government’s playing party political games when the middle east is in crisis and the rest of the world fears the start of an even broader conflict. This is not the time to seek electoral advantage through tripping up political opponents during semantic exchanges, exploiting small differences in language to pretend there is a vast gulf between positions, or selling that to the electorate as “one party good, all other parties bad.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I would like to speak against all the amendments and new clauses before us today and in support of the Bill as currently drafted.

We need this Bill. I thank the Government for including it in the Conservative manifesto and taking it forward, and I urge the whole House to back the Bill and reject the amendments. This, of all times, is a time to stand with the Jewish community, following the worst attack on Jewish people since the holocaust.

BDS has been identified in a succession of studies as driving a rise in antisemitism. By singling out the world’s only Jewish state for criticism, above and beyond that directed at any other country in similar circumstances, I believe BDS campaigns fall within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. The French supreme court has ruled that BDS is discriminatory, and the German Parliament views the movement as antisemitic.

Since the shocking Hamas terror attacks, we have witnessed deeply disturbing scenes on our TV screens and in our streets. These include sickening so-called celebrations of the horrific murders in southern Israel, and the anti-Jewish racism and hatred visible at successive protests on the streets of our capital city. At a time like this, when Jewish people are in fear for their friends and relatives in Israel, it is appalling to compound their anxiety and distress with hate-filled banners and chants at such protests. I find it deeply depressing that “Jihad! Jihad!” has been shouted with impunity on the streets of our city, and that ISIS flags have been on blatant display.

The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents is wholly unacceptable, and it shows us that we need campaigns to bring communities together, not drive them apart. There can be no doubt that BDS is absolutely focused on division, not unity. The BDS movement deplores co-existence and peacebuilding initiatives. For example, it has condemned co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. The movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist.

As we go into the voting Lobbies this evening, we are in a situation where the question to be asked of all of us is: “Which side are you on?”. I make it clear that I strongly support the right of Israel to defend its land and its citizens from terrorist attack.

Of course, we all worry about the plight of innocent Gazans put in harm’s way by Hamas, who brutalise them and deliberately use them as human shields. Of course, we need to get supplies to civilians, so long as there is confidence that they cannot be diverted or misused by terrorists. We must always remember that it is Hamas who have endangered the people of Gaza. Hamas are the people who have caused the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

I am in no doubt that the Israeli Defence Forces are making, and will continue to make, the greatest efforts possible to prevent civilian loss of life. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and it respects the rule of law. I am certain that its democratic and legal institutions will hold its armed forces rigorously to account. Those on the Labour Benches who line up to casually, and wrongly, accuse Israel of war crimes should check their facts, not rush to judgment.

We need our local authorities to concentrate on delivering services, not on conducting their own trade and foreign policy. We need campaigns that promote peaceful progress towards a two-state solution, not bitterness and exclusion. We need to take all possible action against the antisemitism that we have seen increase so shockingly in recent days. We need this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Following the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), let me say this:

“When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 592.]

Those are the words of the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on Monday. He also said that

“this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions.”

He was absolutely right about the importance of tone in today’s debate, as we discuss the 7 October attack and events in the middle east. What we say and how we behave in this Chamber really matters, because it echoes out across the country. It goes without saying that the disgusting rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the attack on 7 October only makes that point more profound.

I fear that the Prime Minister’s powerful statement at the Dispatch Box earlier this week has been undermined by how he and his Ministers have brought this Bill before us today, at the last minute and with the least possible notice. The tension and disagreement surrounding the issues are well known to the Secretary of State yet, in the middle of a humanitarian emergency in the middle east, he has chosen this week of all weeks to force this legislation on to the parliamentary timetable—a Bill that fails the Prime Minister’s own test of avoiding simplistic solutions.

There can be no doubt that Labour is opposed to a policy of adopting boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, as it wrongly singles out one individual nation and is counterproductive to the prospect of peace. We know this is a serious issue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

After Clause 70

Local authorities: hybrid meetings

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22B.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords amendment 45, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

[Rachel Maclean]

As we know from proceedings on this Bill in this place, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is important to this country’s future. It will ensure that this Government and future Governments set clear, long-term objectives for addressing entrenched geographical disparities. It will devolve powers to all areas in England where there is demand for that, allowing local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore pride in places. It further strengthens protections for the environment, so that better outcomes are at the heart of planning decisions.

In the course of the many debates on local authority remote meetings during this Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently expressed our strong view that councillors should be physically present to cast their votes and interact in person with citizens. Our position on this matter has not changed. Therefore, the Government cannot support Lords amendment 22B, which would enable any Government in future to go as far as allowing all local authorities to meet virtually at any and every opportunity.

Turning to climate change, I reiterate that the Government agree that the planning system must support our efforts in meeting our legal net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of climate change. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in both Houses about making sure that national planning policy supports our efforts in tackling the risks of climate change. Therefore, the Government have now gone a step further in tabling an amendment that will require the drafting of policies that are to be designated as national development management policies to

“have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change”,

taking into account the range of climate scenarios and risk relevant to the policies being developed.

I will conclude my brief remarks by again expressing gratitude to my colleagues here and in the other place for their continued and dedicated engagement with this complicated and complex Bill during its parliamentary passage. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that the Government have shown that we have listened carefully to the views of Members from all parts of the House as we seek to improve this nationally important piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I supported the two amendments that the other place has returned to us in their previous guise last week, when I urged the Government to accept them. It is welcome that we have the opportunity to consider these two important issues again.

With regard to the holding of virtual meetings by councils, I prefer the original Lords amendment 22, which provided local authorities with the local discretion to pursue a common-sense and pragmatic approach on the form and conduct of their meetings. That said, the amendment in lieu tabled by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness McIntosh, is pragmatic, conciliatory and takes into account the Government’s concerns about council meetings being held solely online. I urge the Government to consider it in the spirit in which it has been put forward.

I also re-emphasise other considerations that were raised in last week’s debate. Set in the overall context of a Bill that gives local communities and local councils greater discretion and greater autonomy and looks to devolve powers away from Whitehall, it is perverse that the Government are dictating to local authorities how they conduct themselves. There is, as we heard last week, 90% to 95% support from local councils, clerks and their representative bodies for this provision. They understand best the challenges that they face, and they are responsible people who will use wisely any discretion with which they are provided. The provision will strengthen local democracy and will make it easier for such groups as the disabled, parents with young children, carers and those in full-time employment to participate in decision making in their own local communities. For those local authorities that cover large geographical areas, such as Suffolk County Council and the Broads Authority, it is sensible to hold some meetings virtually, rather than insisting that councillors—some of whom are elderly—travel long distances, often in inclement weather, such as we had last week.

When we debated this issue last Tuesday, there was widespread disquiet on the Government Benches about the straitjacket approach that the Government are pursuing. I would be grateful if in her summing up my hon. Friend could outline the strategy that the Government will be putting in place to address those concerns, if they reject the sensible and conciliatory amendment 22B.

In the wake of Storm Babet, the Lords have asked us to look again at amendment 45. The weekend’s events highlighted the need for climate change mitigation to be fully and deeply embedded in local and national planning policy. Although the Government are proposing again to reject the amendment, they have proposed their own alternative, which is to be welcomed. It is necessary to consider, first, whether that will help deliver a more consistent alignment of planning policy and development management with the existing framework for tackling climate change and, secondly, whether it will provide the certainty, consistency and clarity required to deliver the enormous amount of private sector funding required to achieve our net-zero obligations.

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend answered the following questions in her summing up. Will the Government’s amendment bridge the gap in planning policy due to the delay in the review of the national planning policy framework? Will she give an assurance that the review will start as soon as possible, and ideally provide a timescale?

Secondly, there is presently an inconsistency in that a local planning authority’s well thought-through and bespoke climate change mitigation policies can be overturned by either the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate. In that context, will my hon. Friend advise whether the Government’s amendment in lieu removes that contradiction, which undermines proactive and bespoke local planning?

I am grateful to you for your time, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is welcome that the Lords have provided us with a further opportunity to improve the Bill. While the two amendments are in many respects very different, they both give local communities a full opportunity to shape the future of the places where they live and work and, in doing so, achieve meaningful regeneration and levelling up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I would like to start by thanking the Minister for her involvement in the very long saga that is the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which, finally may be drawing to a close. It is good to see the areas of difference between the two Houses reduced.

I appreciate that Lords amendment 22 on councils meeting virtually is a significant issue, as it could set a precedent for other parts of the public sector. I understand the Government’s concerns and why they have resisted it up to now, but I hope there is room for further compromise and at least some flexibility to allow councils to deploy hybrid meetings. If the amendment still goes too far, I hope that Ministers can come up with something, perhaps specifically in the planning context or in at least some circumstances, to make the life of our local councillors a little easier. We must remember that they do a difficult job; they work hard and many are trying to hold down day jobs at the same time. A bit more flexibility for virtual meetings could help to enhance democratic participation.

An amendment that we did not get back from their lordships was on NDMPs. I have a certain amount of regret about that, because I continue to believe that the replacement of local development management policies with a single centralised diktat is the wrong approach. However, I welcome the fact that, thanks to the Government’s amendments in lieu, we now see in the Bill a commitment to consult on NDMPs. That was an important part of the compromise announced last December by the Secretary of State to tackle problems outlined in the amendments package headed by new clause 21, which I tabled. It resulted from concerns felt by many on the Government Benches about problems leading to massive pressure for blocks of flats in the suburbs and housing estates on greenfield and agricultural land in rural areas. Now, we need to see the remainder of that package delivered by the national planning policy framework. Once again, I encourage and urge Ministers to get that published.

We also need to see the new set of planning policy guidance—another document that will be crucial to ensuring that the reforms promised in the planning system deliver real change. Concern remains among Back Benchers about the rush for volume of units at all costs. We all accept the need for new homes and want more homes built, but they need to be the right homes in the right places. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, strongly agree with that.

With that in mind, I can understand the rationale of Lords amendment 45 on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need to do more to ensure that the developments that come forward for approval are consistent with our net zero goals. I am not necessarily saying that Lords amendment 45 is the right vehicle to deliver that, but if we are to make that huge transition to carbon neutrality, construction and development has an enormous part to play, and significant change needs to be delivered. I hope that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the new NPPF reflects our climate goals, in terms of both mitigation and adaptation.

In particular, as we have heard many times during the debate on the Bill, we must take care in relation to areas prone to flooding since, even if we deliver net zero on time, the climate has already changed to make such episodes more serious and more frequent. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my great sympathy to anyone who has been affected by the floods of recent days. I hope they are back in their homes soon. I truly understand what a miserable experience it is to be subjected to these climatic episodes.

Returning lastly and briefly to the December compromise announced on Report by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), I reiterate what I have said a number of times in this House: we need the compromise to be implemented. The issues raised in new clause 21 on excessive targets have not gone away. Back-Bench concern has not gone away. We are all determined to defend our constituencies from overdevelopment. We believe it is vital to shift the focus of home building to big urban city sites like Old Oak Common, Beckton and central Manchester. The Docklands 2.0 approach outlined by the Secretary of State in his July speech and in his long-term plan for housing reflects our climate commitments by situating people close to jobs, services and public transport systems. It helps to take the pressure off suburban and rural areas, protecting green spaces and the green belt, and supports our ambitions for nature recovery. So, please, let us make sure that that change really happens.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I would like to begin by expressing my disappointment, but not necessarily my surprise, at the unelected other place’s refusal to push for amendments that would protect devolution. Given how unclear, unfocused and unfit for purpose the Bill is, I had hoped the other place would advocate for some revisions to mitigate its impact. I will keep my remarks relatively short. Both amendments do not necessarily relate to Scotland and, unlike the actions of the Conservative Government which would imply otherwise, it is important that we respect the devolution settlement.

Lords amendment 22B sought to allow local councils in England to conduct procedures in a hybrid environment. Throughout the covid emergency, we saw how critical those procedures were in raising participation and in opening meetings to different demographics in society. We saw that virtual meetings can work well in response to challenging circumstances. Actually, we saw that over the last week. The storms that Scotland experienced— England also experienced them—provided a perfect use case for hybrid meetings. It is unlikely that a physical meeting could have taken place in those storm conditions. Hybrid meetings also allow people from different demo-graphics, who historically have been disengaged due to the challenges of getting to and from physical meetings, to participate. If Lords amendment 22B is accepted, it will mean that groups such as lone parents and those with caring responsibilities can engage. I am also concerned that the resistance to hybrid meetings stems from a larger culture war narrative being propagated by out of touch Tories who want to remain in the 1800s. We have seen those culture wars being fought in this very Chamber. It is a disgrace and a disrespect to democracy that my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), if we all remember, was unable to participate remotely in this Chamber after she had a brain haemorrhage. In February 2022, she attended Parliament physically against her doctors’ orders to raise the plight of her constituents, and she continues to attend today. While that is an incredible depiction of her service to her constituents, it is shameful that when solutions such as hybrid meetings exist, we slam the door in their face.

Since the pandemic, Scotland has continued to allow local councils the autonomy to hold hybrid proceedings. It is particularly beneficial for local authorities that cover large geographic areas, allowing those who live far away from council headquarters to access democracy if they so wish. Such measures only increase participation in local democracy. I think we can all agree that that is essential to a healthy democracy.

Lords Amendment 45 relates to climate change duties on planning authorities. Again, the amendment does not cover Scotland. However, with the storm and the harsh weather conditions over the last week, and the likelihood of such once in a generation weather events seeming to happen on such a regular basis, it is imperative that we take the necessary action to tackle climate change.

In this place, we might not necessarily feel the impact of the legislation we pass straightway. As Members, we have a duty towards future generations. Now, I am only 31, so I count myself in one of those future generations. I am not sure that some of my more experienced colleagues can say the same.

One of my favourite quotations is an old Greek proverb which has not been attributed to anyone in particular: “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” When I think of that quotation, I often think of climate change provisions. The reality is that the planet is on fire, and we are simply not doing enough to help our future generations. We need to pass legislation whose benefits we may not see, but the generations to come will. I appreciate that the Government still recognise the need to tackle climate change with their amendment in lieu, but the measures that it outlines are simply not strong enough. It is important for us not to get into the way of thinking that these are binary choices: it is perfectly possible to construct while maintaining our moral duty to tackle the climate crisis.

The SNP will not be voting on these amendments, but we do hope that our neighbours in England are able to participate in a hybrid system, and engage in local democracy and have the ability to take the climate emergency seriously.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to refer specifically to Lords amendment 22B. Part of me wants to be sympathetic towards it, especially after the measured speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). However, I have a concern about the understanding on which it is predicated, namely, that councils do their job properly. Unfortunately I have experience of Soviet Sandwell Council, which does not do its job properly.

I remember the pandemic, and I remember the lack of accountability that we saw when virtual meetings cut out halfway through and the public were seemingly unable to access meetings at which key decisions were being made. It therefore frightens me that we might consider potentially giving a local authority—I am sorry to say this—as corrupt as Sandwell Council any possibility of hiding itself behind virtual meetings. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to intervene on this local authority some 12 months ago because of the utter failure in its governance processes is one reason why I hesitate to support the Bill.

I recognise that local authorities broadly can and do get this right, but where it goes horribly wrong, we have seen it and we have lived it, and it terrifies me. Even today, when we are back in physical meetings, let me give Members an example of what might transpire if the amendment were passed. If a monitoring officer fails to advise that a council is in breach of section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, that effectively allows councillors to vote on a pecuniary matter in which they have an interest, which, as Members will know, is against the law. I believe that this local authority would use the provisions in the amendment to hide itself and mask itself, and to allow even more of the inept and, in fact, borderline corrupt behaviour that we have seen. Unfortunately, officers at a high level—I do not mean all officers, but certainly the officers in the local authority with whom I have dealt—seem quite happy to be complicit in some of that behaviour at times. That is why it would terrify me to allow this amendment to be passed.

The core of the amendment, however, involves accessibility. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) touched on that, and I agree with him: I think we need to get better at accessibility, and to consider broader ways of doing that. Although the amendment may not be passed, I think it has drawn out something that we have to do. Whatever the colour of our Government, we need to get more people into council meetings to talk about their experiences. However, I am terrified by what this amendment would do to my constituents. Effectively, it would allow the authority to mask itself even more.

I have come to one conclusion on this. I think there is a way in which the amendment might work. Sandwell Council is, ultimately, an embarrassment for the Black Country and a stain on local government in the west midlands, and we are undergoing a review of local government in the west midlands at the moment. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is now time to abolish Sandwell Council, and subsume the towns that make it up into other parts. I am thinking particularly of my communities in Tipton and Wednesbury. They need their identity back, but, more important, they need that accountability. It is time for Sandwell to go, because it has been an embarrassment for the last 50 years. It is time to put it in the bin.

I support some of the underlying aims of the Lords amendments, which I think we must take forward. I think we can all agree on that, across the House. However, owing to the experiences I have had for the last four years as a Member of Parliament, this particular mechanism concerns me a great deal, and I can only support it if there is some sort of guarantee that Sandwell Council will be put in the bin.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am going to make some brief comments because I spoke in the debate last week. I reiterate the concerns about this legislation, which has been poorly drafted. Lords amendment 22B would allow councillors to attend meetings virtually or hybrid-style meetings. The amendment is a good opportunity to increase participation in local politics and I think that we should be encouraging it.

For many councillors, the reality of fulfilling their role means working around another full-time job, working late into the evening as well as at weekends, or balancing their parenting commitments, so councillors’ time is under great pressure. Most councillors are in their post purely because of their commitment to their local community, and we should be helping them out by allowing the occasional virtual attendance at a meeting if that reduces the time burden on them. I have heard the argument that our constituents rightly expect us to attend Parliament in person and that elected members of the local council should therefore be expected to do the same, but that argument misses the incredibly important point that, for most people, being a councillor is not a full-time salaried job. To expect them to sacrifice yet more of their time to travel to meetings to offer contributions that could otherwise be made online is simply unfair.

Travel brings me to a particularly pertinent point at the moment. In my constituency and other rural parts of Britain, it is not uncommon for council meetings to be held many miles away from the ward or division that a councillor represents or from where they live. In some cases, that will mean travelling 20 to 50 miles one way to attend a council meeting. Clearly this is a problem in poor weather, as we only have to look at the damage and chaos of the last week to see. It also means that councillors usually have to have their own car, not least because an evening meeting will be held when most bus services have stopped running for the day. That means that people are being excluded from becoming involved in local democracy simply because they do not have access to a car. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was supposed to put greater devolution at its heart and encourage more people into the democratic process. If we really want to engage people in politics and widen representation and access, we should be making it easier for people to represent their communities, not more difficult.

I move briefly on to Lords amendment 45. It is the Liberal Democrats’ view that the original amendment is superior to the Government’s amendment in lieu. It would place duties on the Secretary of State to mitigate and adapt planning policy to reflect climate change. Planning is an integral part of achieving net zero, and as such it is only right that it puts climate considerations at its heart. At the moment, net zero goals are inconsistently applied to planning applications. Local development plans consider climate complications, whereas individual planning applications do not and, without the Government’s amendment in lieu, national development management policies—NDMPs—will not either.

The Lords amendment would extend environmental duties to all aspects of the planning system with a sharpened focus, ensuring that new plans would contribute to specific climate and nature targets. A dual approach is particularly important because climate and ecological decline are closely intertwined, and unfortunately both are accelerating. I do not think that this amendment should be controversial. It is publicly backed by environment businesses, local government and environmental NGOs. The time has run out for looking at climate change simply as an add-on or an afterthought, and given the Government’s recent back-pedalling on their net zero commitments, this should be an easy opportunity to put climate change at the core of the planning process.

Without these Lords amendments, the Bill will miss two key opportunities to encourage local democratic participation and consider climate complications to planning applications. Both these factors are surely at the core of what levelling up should be about.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate today and for their contributions throughout the passage of this important Bill. I will address briefly the points made by Members. First, let me turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). He has spoken with his customary good sense and practical bent, as have others, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who speaks for the Scottish National party, about the real problems faced by people who wish to take part in local democracy without being excluded because of where they live, because they do not have a car or because of other barriers. This is important, and the whole House recognises those barriers and supports that admirable objective. We need our politics to be as inclusive as possible.

However, I have also heard loud and clear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who alerted us to the problems that could exist if we were to accept Lords amendment 22B. It is right that we consider all the possible consequences, and it is the Government’s view that the amendment goes too far and is too expansive. It would allow any future Government to allow any local authority to meet virtually at every opportunity, which is not something the Government can accept. It is a long-standing principle that local democracy should take place face to face.

I agree with some of the shadow Minister’s comments, and we are looking very carefully at how we encourage more engagement from the community, particularly on planning applications. We can do a lot of that through technology and wider reforms to our system, and it is right that we continue that work.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am more than happy to give way—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Lady has only just entered the Chamber. She should wait for a wee while before she rises to intervene.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am now more than happy to give way to a range of colleagues.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that in just a moment, but first let me set the record straight. The Clerks have informed me that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) was in the Chamber from the start. I apologise. I would not wish that to influence the decision of the Secretary of State on who he gives way to.

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

I accept entirely the force of what the Secretary of State has said, but clearly under section 8 many landlords will, for perfectly legitimate reasons—to get rid of a tenant for antisocial behaviour or whatever—have recourse to section 21 simply because of the convenience and ease, particularly in the face of tenants who make particular difficulties. That is why the provisions that he is making in respect of the courts being able to deal with such things effectively and efficiently are vital as part of the reform that he is bringing forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

We absolutely do. I very much welcome that intervention. We all have so many stories and know so many families for whom the Bill and ending section 21 evictions would make an enormous difference. It would also make for a more level playing field for those good landlords who are doing the right thing. I am therefore appalled that the Secretary of State is potentially pulling the rug from under the Bill by saying that no-fault evictions can only be ended once the courts are reformed. That is Conservative failure in the justice system compounding Conservative failure in housing. Who loses out? It is hard-working, rent-paying British people. I urge the Minister to give a clear timetable for putting those legal reforms in place so that the can is not just kicked down the road.

While I am pleased that the Bill sets out new stricter grounds for eviction, I remain concerned that it does not go far, or fast, enough. First, the Bill has taken too long; the Government must speed up its delivery. About 290 Londoners face no-fault evictions each week, so every six months of delay in the Bill will mean another 15,000 more Londoners will face no-fault evictions. We do not have time. Secondly, there should be a requirement that private rented homes meet the decent homes standard. I have been calling for a Minister for mould for a long time.

Thirdly, provision to increase councils’ investigative and enforcement powers is necessary. There needs to be funding for that as well; otherwise, we are shifting the problem from national to local government, which will need to shift around its resources and take funding from other areas.

Fourthly, there are loopholes that must be closed. Otherwise, section 21 could just continue by another name. Unscrupulous landlords could game the system and exploit the new grounds to sell an occupied property, so it is vital that a high level of evidence is required to demonstrate the intention to sell or occupy a property. The change to discretionary grounds from “likely” to “capable” of causing antisocial behaviour is open to so many varying interpretations that it will lead to inconsistent, unfair application, so it will not be the game changer in getting rid of antisocial behaviour that it could be.

Finally, preventing homelessness by preserving the private renter’s right to access to homelessness assistance from their council as soon as a possession notice is served would be an essential addition to the Bill.

The Bill is a first step that only scratches the surface of what is needed to fix the housing emergency that the Conservatives have created. Mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own homes and more than a million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists, compounded by the threat of no-fault eviction were they to move into the private rented sector. More homes must be built.

While the Government have promised a rebalancing of the relationship between tenants and landlords, unless we see several amendments, the current crisis looks set to continue. The Bill is a good launching point, but Labour would significantly strengthen protections for private renters beyond its scope, so that good landlords can be assured of being on a level playing field, bad landlords will stop misusing their powers and tenants will finally be able to get the long-term security, rights and conditions that they deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the ever-patient John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Look, the major problem is that we are not building enough council houses. On the Conservative Benches a couple of Members referred to Harold Macmillan. Harold Macmillan took on from Clem Attlee a huge housing programme and built council houses. My family was a beneficiary of that. We moved out of a slum and into a council house. We just need to build more council houses. We cannot rely on the private market, because it profiteers. In my constituency, landlords can make a profit by leaving the property empty because the price will always go up, and sometimes they do not want to be encumbered by a tenancy. When tenants complain, they get kicked out and are made homeless. In my constituency, people have been pushed all around the country. I have people living in a Travelodge in Slough. They have to bring their children into Hayes each day, which takes an hour and a half. Then there is temporary accommodation with poor conditions and hostels. We have children being brought up in temporary accommodation. I looked at the figures: 131,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation.

I fully support the Bill’s getting rid of section 21, but the problem is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said. The sanctions and conditions will render it totally ineffective. Landlords will simply take a three-month hit and then rent it out straight after that. And to rely on the court system! We have to be honest with one another. The Government have closed 300 county courts. There was a cut of 35% in the Justice budget over the last period. In addition, if we are looking to local authorities to enforce, nearly 20 local authorities are under section 114 notices. In other words, they are bankrupt and do not have the staff to do the enforcement. To be frank, in many areas now the lack of access to basic legal advice—not legal aid, but basic legal advice—from local law centres is non-existent. My citizens advice bureau, bless it, works so hard, but it is rushed off its feet so it cannot provide sufficient advice on the scale that is needed.

My plea is for urgency. We have had a really good debate, a forensic analysis of the Bill: the detail and the beneficial elements, but also the gaps and the need for change and amendment. I hope the Committee will, on Report, bring back a significantly amended Bill that will scrap section 21—that is what both parties promised in our manifestos at the last election, and I believe that other political parties did exactly the same. There is unanimity in this House to scrap section 21, but we must do it with a sense of urgency and we must do it effectively.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Approval

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Henry]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and, yes, I do agree with her. We certainly need local authorities to make sure that housing and HMOs are built in a fair way in keeping with the feel of the communities that they serve.

Broxtowe Borough Council introduced an article 4 direction in Beeston to slow the change taking place in the community. Prior to article 4, Beeston had been experiencing a rapid increase in the number of HMOs. HMOs are an important part of our housing mix in Broxtowe, but a sense of community cohesion can be lost when an area has an over-concentration of a single type of dwelling. This can include people not knowing their neighbours because of a constant turnover of occupiers, which, again, leads to that sense of a lack of community. It was therefore decided that the council needed the power to evaluate proposed conversions of dwelling houses into HMOs and the effect that those conversions would have on the local community. On the completion of a consultation, the boundaries for the protected area were drawn up, which covered large parts of Beeston and Beeston Rylands.

Although the initiative was well-meaning, it has failed in places to address the problem and that has had unintended consequences. As article 4 was not applied retrospectively to either the location of HMOs or their registration, vast amounts remain undetected by the council, leading to the possibility of conversions being allowed next to existing HMOs of which the council are not aware. On the introduction of article 4, landlords were required to sign only an affidavit stating that the house had previously been an HMO, thus allowing them to navigate around the article 4 planning permission even if not true. Fortunately, the council is now requiring proof of previous HMO status.

Due to the long period that it took for article 4 to be finally approved, developers had plenty of time to take advantage of the lack of restrictions, with only the warning that regulation was on its way. Many feel that irreversible change to Beeston’s community has indeed already taken place, rendering article 4 a moot point.

The other consequence is that developers are now looking further afield for new HMOs outside of the article 4 area, putting at risk the communities of other areas, including Chilwell, Attenborough, Trowell and Bramcote. This must be addressed, and we must look at planning regulation to ensure that the individual identities of these places are not compromised.

Small towns are being impacted by these decisions. HMOs are changing the nature of our communities. It would be unfair to say that all HMOs are having a negative impact and I would like to reiterate that our student population—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Those on the Opposition Front Bench know the rules relating to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber. There is plenty of space outside the Chamber to do what the hon. Ladies are doing.

[Darren Henry]

I wish to reiterate that our student population has had, in my view, an overall positive impact in Beeston. Each HMO must be decided on by considering the street, town, neighbours, and sense of community. It is imperative that planning officers take into account the needs of local permanent residents while making plans for developments. There is a need for planning rules to be revised to ensure that HMOs are being approved by the local community for the local community. Will the Minister lay out for me today what the Government are doing to address the rising number of HMOs, and the impact that those HMOs are having on communities?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is giving way. That is his prerogative, but it has not escaped the notice of the Chair that the right hon. Member for Islington North came in late.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I missed the first two minutes of the speech, and I apologise. Following on from the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the issue of the private rented sector is devastating in inner-city areas such as mine, where private rents are now going up—the worst I have heard is an 80% increase—because of the end of restrictions on them. Will the Secretary of State take some action to bring about a rent freeze in the private rented sector? It is devastating, particularly for young people looking for flats in London, to try to find anywhere to live. They are spending a vast proportion of their income on rent, which is simply wrong and not fair. We need rent control in the private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Looking around the Chamber, it is obvious that more than 50 Members wish to speak in this debate. I will therefore put down a marker now that with effect after the Front-Bench speeches there will be a fixed time limit of five minutes, which may well drop to four minutes in the course of the afternoon. I call Ed Miliband.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he can be patient, I will give him the answer. First, the Library staff told me, “Well, certainly not under any Government since the second world war.” I asked them to go back further, and they went back to the first world war, but they said, “No, not since the first world war.” They had to go all the way back to 1855 to find that happening—before the foundation of the Labour party, I say to the hon. Gentleman. For all the enormous challenges that Governments have faced over 168 years, this Government stand out for their failure to deliver what I think all sides can agree the British people have the right to expect—rising standards of living. Throw in the highest tax burden since the 1950s, public services that are crumbling in so many areas and debt that is up, and it is no wonder that the British people are asking what they have to show for 13 years of this lot. They are being paid less and taxed more for worse quality services. Conservative Members may not like it, but it is the truth—it is their record, it is their legacy.

That takes me to the second part of my speech. Why has this happened? It is because the Government have had the wrong priorities and they have failed on growth. Let us talk about the priorities in this Budget. I welcome the fact that the Government followed our plan to stop energy bills rising even further. But let us be clear—I think this feeling is shared on both sides of the House—that £2,500 energy bills are not a cause for celebration. They are double what they were 18 months ago. The energy bills crisis is absolutely not over for families and businesses up and down this country.

Of course, when we proposed the windfall tax the Government resisted it tooth and nail. Then they were dragged kicking and screaming to do it. But here’s the thing: as they did so, they introduced a massive tax break for the very fossil fuel companies whose windfalls of war they were supposed to be taxing. It was not mentioned in the Budget, it was not even in the published OBR documents—it was in an annex—that the total cost of that loophole is £11.4 billion over the coming years. That is a tax break for companies making record profits and paying out record amounts in dividends and share buy-backs—a tax break not available to any other sector of the economy, including renewables. Think how those billions of pounds could have helped to tackle the cost of living crisis. By the Government’s choices we know their priorities, and it is not the British people.

Let us take the issue of the abolition of the pension tax relief lifetime allowance, on which we will force a vote this evening. It may interest the House to hear what a former Chancellor said about why we have a lifetime allowance. He said that

“we must demonstrate that we are all in this together. When looking for savings, I think that it is fair to look at the tax relief that we give to the top 1%.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 878.]

Who was that? Not Gordon Brown. Not Alistair Darling. It was George Osborne, in the autumn statement of 2012. Remember him? But we do not need to go back that far. I have been doing my research. What about the Budget of March 2021? I wonder who was Chancellor then—he might have gone on to higher things. The then Chancellor froze the lifetime pensions allowance for five years and said:

“It is a tax policy that is progressive and fair”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]

That was the current Prime Minister. Let me explain why he said that. The reason we have a lifetime limit on tax-free pension saving is to provide some cap on the amount of pensions tax relief for the most wealthy in our society. The average pension pot in this country is £60,000. The change the Chancellor is making to abolish the lifetime limit of over £1 million is therefore about people with a pension pot 17 times the average. The Minister nods from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] He says it is all surgeons: I will come to that in a moment.

According to the Resolution Foundation, this change will give a benefit of almost £250,000 to someone with a £2 million pension. If Members vote for this Budget measure tonight, they will be voting for a tax cut of almost £250,000 for people with a £2 million pension pot. That might be the right priority for the Government: it is not the right priority for us.

The Minister for Health and Secondary Care claims, and the Chancellor says, that they are doing this for the doctors. But according to the Resolution Foundation, five in six people with the largest pension pots, who will benefit from this change, are not doctors. They are not in medicine at all. In fact—get this—one in five of the people who will benefit are in banking and finance and nothing to do with the medical profession. There could have been a bespoke scheme at a fraction of the cost, just like there is for the judges.

We have been told by Treasury Ministers that this is the “politics of envy”. No, it is not, it is about fairness. Even George Osborne agrees with that, and when you are beaten by George Osborne on fairness, you know you are losing the argument. The other argument that Government Members have been making is that Labour is somehow creating problems by opposing this measure. Let us get this straight: the Government come along with a £1 billion tax cut for the very richest in our society when everyone is struggling and they blame us! The truth is that it says so much about them, because here’s the thing: they did not even get that it would be controversial. That is how out of touch they are.

There should have been different tax choices in the Budget to fund our schools, cut NHS waiting lists and level up our country. The Government could have ended non-dom status, but they will not do that. They could have ended the tax breaks for private schools to help fund our state schools, but they will not do that either. In preparing for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I came across a brilliant article for that proposal set out in 2017 in The Times, entitled “Put VAT on school fees”. It was written by a participant in today’s debate and I think it is worth quoting. The author said this:

“to my continuing surprise, we still consider the education of the children of plutocrats and oligarchs to be a charitable activity.”

I am not sure that we on the Opposition Front Bench would go that far, but there you go. [Laughter.] He went on to say:

“The prime minister, quite rightly, wants to end burning injustice...We could scarcely find a better way of doing that than ending tax advantages for the global super-rich and instead extending them to the vulnerable and voiceless. What better way to make next month’s budget a budget for social justice?”

Now, the House may be wondering who wrote that article. It was none other than the Levelling Up Secretary! I am a generous person, so I will give way to him and he can tell us whether he still believes what he wrote six years ago. Does he agree with himself? Why so uncharacteristically bashful? Why this sudden bout of monastic silence? It is so uncharacteristic. I would love for him to tell us: did he make the argument in Government in the run-up to the Budget, or did he just not bother to make the argument because he did not think he had a hope of persuading the people in charge? I think it is probably the latter, because, let us be honest, there is zero evidence that this Government will make the necessary choices. He knows it and the country knows it. The Government have the wrong priorities, which is why people are sick and tired of them.

Let us talk about the third part of the Budget, because it does not just have the wrong priorities for now, but for the future too. I want to come on to the energy transformation that the country needs. If we want to get energy bills down, there is a simple answer: going all in on a green energy sprint. We know that wind and solar are many times cheaper than fossil fuels, but the problem is that we have a Government who do not get it. The Levelling Up Secretary is a case in point. When he should be blocking coalmines he waves them through, as he has done in Cumbria. By the way, it will interest the House to know that he said it is carbon neutral, good for the climate and good for the environment. People may wonder. We have been going around the world lecturing people about getting off coal, so how have we suddenly got a coalmine that is good for the environment? Well, the answer is that in the calculations he made, he does not count the burning of the coal, just the mining of it. That is like saying tobacco does not damage your health if you do not take into account the smoking of it. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that is correct, isn’t it? Yes, it is correct.

The Levelling Up Secretary should support onshore wind, but he blocks it. The onshore wind ban is very important. It is symbolic. The Government have their fifth energy re-set coming next week, I believe, so I look forward to that. It is the fifth one in two and a half years—a sure sign that the policy is not going well. The onshore wind ban brought in by David Cameron raised bills—this is really important—by £160 for every family in the country. It did seem like good news, because the Levelling Up Secretary made some positive noises and promised things would change in December, but all the evidence is that yet again the Government will resile from taking the right position. This month, RenewableUK expressed its bitter disappointment, saying that

“Ministers are doing almost nothing to lift the draconian ban”.

The Energy Secretary, who is not here, calls onshore wind an “eyesore”. It makes me nostalgic, believe it or not, for the brief period when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was Business Secretary. He was an unlikely climate warrior but his proposal to bring onshore wind rules in line with other infrastructure was better than the position under the current Government. It is harder today to build an onshore wind farm—a unique category in the planning system in England, whereby, basically, if one person objects, it cannot be built—than it is to build an incinerator. That does not make any sense. Why not go for the proposal from the right hon. Member for North East Somerset? That is my injunction to the Secretary of State.

The Government have failed not just on onshore wind, but on energy efficiency. In 2010 there were 1.7 million home upgrades. Last year there were 128,000, and there was no new money in the Budget. At that rate, it will take a century to bring all homes up to an energy performance certificate C rating.

But the biggest long-term failure of the Budget is the lack of a coherent plan to compete with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. This is really serious. Talk to any business today and they will say that this is a massive competitive challenge for the UK. On offshore wind, we are doing well on generation—lots of people say that it was started by the last Labour Government—but not on delivering the jobs in offshore wind. Denmark has three times as many jobs in wind energy as us, with about a tenth of the population. Then look at other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke eloquently about steel: there are already 23 clean steel demonstration plants across Europe. How many are there in the UK? None. Across Europe, 40 gigafactories are expected to open by 2030. In the UK only one is certain. Alarmingly—this is the consequence of the onshore wind policy—the number of jobs in solar and onshore wind has actually fallen over the last five years in Britain because of the blockages in the system. That is why the Institute of Directors said just days before the Budget:

“The UK deserves nothing less than its own version of the Inflation Reduction Act”.

And the CBI pointed out our failure on spending.

I was very disappointed by the Budget. It was the moment to turn it around. It turns out there was no new money for carbon capture, but the promise of £1 billion some time in the future. I am old enough to remember when there was a £1 billion carbon capture and storage plan. It was announced 15 years ago by the last Labour Government, but was cancelled by this Government. The other boast was a reheated announcement of a competition for small modular reactors. We are in favour of new nuclear, but a reannouncement from 2015 will not make it happen.

There was warm praise for Lord Heseltine, which I agree with. I remember Lord Heseltine saying he would intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner, and then wake up the next morning and intervene again before breakfast. That is not the character of this Government. What was the Government’s reaction to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act? The Energy Secretary called it “dangerous”, the Business Secretary said it was “protectionist”, and the Chancellor did not support it. As if crying foul is going to stop the race. It will not stop the race; it will leave us behind. I do not believe that the Government get what a modern industrial policy looks like. We needed a new national wealth fund to invest in the industries of the future. We needed GB Energy, a proper publicly owned energy generation company, to invest in all forms of low carbon generation. We need a sprint for zero-carbon power by 2030. We need a plan to insulate 19 million cold, draughty homes. We got none of that from this Budget, but that is what a Labour Government would do.

In their failure to grasp the future, the Government show why it is high time they were consigned to the past. After 13 years of their failure, the last thing we need is another five years. They have the wrong priorities. They have no proper plan for the future. They cannot provide the leadership the country needs. It is time for change.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Five-minute limit. I call Simon Clarke.

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

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said in his speech that by their choices you will know their priorities. He was absolutely right. The Chancellor showed last week that his priorities are the priorities of Teesside. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said in his speech that he would take anyone who wanted on a tour of Teesside to see our freeport and the fantastic progress being made there. Many Opposition Members would benefit from such a tour, because they would see the transformative impact of the carbon capture and storage investment that the Chancellor reaffirmed last week.

Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State said in his closing remarks, Net Zero Teesside is a reality. It is going up as we speak, backed by Shell, Equinor and BP—real companies investing in a real project that is transformational not just for the industries of the future, but our existing industrial base in steel, chemicals, plastics and all those industries which emit carbon dioxide as an intrinsic part of their production, not just in terms of the emissions released as part of energy generation, but as a by-product. That is why carbon capture is so vital. That is why it was so welcome that it was backed strongly in the Budget last week. We had a welcome decision on new nuclear and its classification as a sustainable technology, which is absolutely right and vital for the future. I welcome warmly the position to keep Hartlepool nuclear power station producing for two more years.

Critically, there was direct investment in our communities—£20 million secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) for Eston Square, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly celebrated in his remarks. That follows the £15 million for Guisborough in my constituency, the £6 million for Loftus and the £36 million for the Middlesbrough town deal. That is investment in the economic drivers of growth and in the communities that need it. By the time we go to the polls in 2024, the Government’s levelling up plan will have transformed people’s lives—that is a good sign.

There was much else to welcome in the Budget including, critically, the announcements on childcare—something that the group Next Gen Tories has been campaigning hard for. We all know across this House that the cost of childcare is unsustainably high and deeply unfair. The campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed has reported that for two thirds of families, childcare costs are as much as their mortgage. That is totally unjust and clearly an obstacle not just for the economy but for our having the children we need as a society. It is right that the Chancellor has taken bold action to address it.

I also welcome the abolition of the lifetime allowance on pensions, which will have a major impact on our retaining the doctors we need. The response of the British Medical Association says a lot more than that of shadow Front Benchers, who we have seen in complete chaos, with the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Health Secretary utterly at odds about this important measure.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is bold action on worklessness. The OBR estimates that 110,000 more people will be supported into the workplace by 2027-28. That is exactly what we need—the combination of challenge and support that people across the country want from the welfare state and our excellent jobcentres. It is an absolute scandal that too many people have their lives written off as economically inactive owing to health conditions, when they could work. There is all the support and ingenuity that can be deployed available to help with that vital process. All that was to be welcomed in the Budget.

There were some aspects of the Budget that I wish had been different. I have made no secret of my deep concern about the decisions surrounding the future of our corporation tax increase. I think that we have seen the consequences already with the decision of AstraZeneca to choose the Republic of Ireland over the UK for its next investment. I welcome the offsetting benefits of the full expensing that the Chancellor announced. If that is to work, it is vital that it is a permanent decision rather than simply a temporary relief, otherwise it will have a distorting effect on business investment. I very much hope that the Chancellor will make that permanent if the headroom is there to enable it, as he said he would. That will be vital to ensure that the measure is a success.

It will not surprise Members across the House that I believe that we need to do more on the generators of growth more generally. I point out the importance of housing, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. In the end, the only sustainable way to improve our economic activity in this space—and the social justice of our housing debate—is to build more homes, addressing the challenges of nimbyism and nutrient neutrality. I hope and believe that there will be more progress on that in the months ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson. No time limit.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4)(c) includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England.”

This amendment confirms that licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) may provide for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England for the purposes of the regulations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.

This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.

Government amendment 3, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) each local housing authority in England,

(aa) each social services authority in England,”.

This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).

[Felicity Buchan]

We have already heard earlier in the Bill’s passage that there is a real risk of rogue providers changing location in order to avoid regulation. I am determined to put a stop to the exploitation of vulnerable people through the provision of poor-quality supported housing. For the rogues this is a lucrative activity, which is incentive enough for them to move location in order to avoid impending regulation.

The Bill currently provides that licensing regulations may include provision under which the Secretary of State may designate the district of “a” local housing authority as subject to licensing. The amendment clarifies that such provision includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate every district in England as subject to licensing, which means that the Secretary of State could introduce universal local licensing by exercising a power to be conferred by the licensing regulations of clause 4 to designate every local housing authority district in England. It is important that this is set out clearly as an option. The licensing regulations must still make provision for a local housing authority to self-designate, and may require a local housing authority to do so if conditions are met.

I tabled amendment 1 because the Government need to be able to reset the system. We must be able to put a stop to providers simply moving to areas without a licensing scheme and setting up there. With universal local licensing, we could prevent a landlord who had failed a “fit and proper person” test in an area with a licensing scheme from simply relocating to an area without licensing, and thus potentially protect vulnerable residents. If universal local licensing is pursued—and I consider it to be an option—that will mean that all residents of supported housing, wherever they are in England, can take comfort from the fact that the national supported housings standards will be enforced, and action will be taken should a provider not meet them. That option must be available to the Secretary of State.

I want to reassure Members that the Government will consult on the detail of the licensing regime, as is required in the Bill. That, of course, includes consulting on the duty set out in clause 6 relating to the method of enforcing the national supported housing standards, and the effectiveness of the licensing regime. We remain determined that the regime should be light-touch in order to avoid overburdening good providers and local authorities, but also robust enough to force out those running supported housing for the wrong reasons. We will keep the licensing scheme under review to ensure that it is working as was intended. I hope that Members will agree to our making this change.

Let me now deal with Government amendment 2. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) cannot be present today because of future commitments, and he sent me his apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling a similar amendment in Committee, and I am pleased to be able to bring it back to the House today. In Committee he spoke of his concerns about how residents could access supported housing, and expressed particular concern about the problems experienced by residents who were mixed together inappropriately, as well as the increased advertising of supported housing provision on websites such as Gumtree and Zoopla. On the latter point, I can offer some reassurance. I recently met representatives of Gumtree, at their request, to discuss the practice by some supported housing providers of placing advertisements on its website. Gumtree, I am glad to say, has already started to crack down on these inappropriate advertisements and has expressed its willingness to continue to work with the Government on this matter. Members will know that Gumtree is not the only service that can enable rogue landlords to advertise poor-quality supported housing. The Government will work with these services to find solutions, and my amendment will also help.

In the report on exempt accommodation, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee also raised the issue of access routes into supported housing. I am well aware that residents are finding their way into supported housing through a variety of routes, including websites, as I mentioned earlier, where landlords purport to be providing supported housing but are, in fact, perpetuating the abuse that we are here to tackle. At best, placing someone in supported housing without testing its suitability will mean that the right outcomes will not be achieved and the person will not be able to move on into independent living, if that is appropriate. At worst, failing to assess the residents’ needs is a clear indicator that genuine support is simply not being delivered at all, and that is not acceptable.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I are in agreement that it is vital that the resident’s support needs are assessed, so that they can be given the right support in the right accommodation. Once these arrangements are in place, we would expect assessments to be carried out in advance of a resident moving into the accommodation, but, in some circumstances, we recognise that that may not be possible. None the less, all supported housing residents must have the confidence that they are living in the right place with the support that they need. Amendment 2 proposed by the Government delivers on that by adding to the list of conditions that may be attached to a supported housing licence at clause 5(3) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents, or potential residents, including in relation to the conduct of those needs assessments. The fine details will, of course, be subject to consultation, but this amendment demonstrates the importance that the House places on proper support being given to supported housing residents, tailored to their individual need. I hope Members agree with me on that.

Amendment 3 is more of a technical amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for proposing this amendment in Committee and I am pleased to be able to return with it today. The amendment seeks to amend clause 6, following a request from the Local Government Association to be removed as a statutory consultee. The Bill includes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult on a number of issues related to the measures in the Bill. As I have said in earlier debates, it is very important to me that we carefully test these measures for unintended consequences before implementation. As determined as I am to drive out poor provision and drive up standards in supported housing, I am equally determined to ensure that good providers can continue to support the vulnerable people who need these vital services.

The Local Government Association asked to be replaced as a statutory consultee by local authorities. Local authorities—or to use the language of the Bill, local housing authorities and social service authorities—will deliver many of the measures in the Bill. It is right that we seek their views before making regulations. In line with that request, the amendment removes the Local Government Association from the list of statutory consultees in clause 6 and replaces them with local housing authorities and social services authorities in England. The effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to consult local housing authorities and social service authorities on the design of the licensing regime before making regulations. I hope that hon. Members will agree with this amendment also.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

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

When we are considering opportunities for private Members’ Bills and when we are drawn in the lottery for them, it is important that we consider what we are going to take forward. I am very conscious that I have met many Members who have been in this House for more than 20 years and have never been drawn in the ballot, and this is my second opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill. [Interruption.] Members have to enter the ballot if they want to succeed.

My experience in 2016 with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was a key pointer, because Members have the choice of taking a Bill that the Government would like them to take, developing a Bill that the Government completely oppose and going down in flames, or developing their own. In both cases when I have been drawn, I have chosen the latter. That is not the easy route by any means, but when I had the opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill, I wanted to make sure that I helped vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves. That is why the Homelessness Reduction Act, the single biggest reform in housing for more than 40 years, came about.

This new Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, deals with the vulnerable people who should be assisted as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Both that Act and this Bill stem from reports published by Select Committees on which I have had the honour of serving: we have provided the evidence base and have almost carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bills before we propose them.

I am pleased to speak to this Bill once more as it reaches Third Reading, and I am encouraged by the journey thus far. We have engaged in meaningful and constructive debate, leading to the fine-tuned edits that we have just made on Report. The main message of the Bill, however, remains the same: we want to prevent vulnerable tenants from being exploited by rogue landlords. My central message to the good providers out there—there are some brilliant organisations that help vulnerable people—is that they have nothing to fear from the new legislation. It is the rogues we are after—those who exploit vulnerable people.

As the cost of living crisis continues to affect residents across the country, the need for supported accommodation is growing rapidly. It is therefore vital that we regulate the market now, before many more vulnerable people are subjected to the horrors that are far too often demonstrated. Once again, I take the opportunity to recommend that individuals read the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is available from the Vote Office and other good bookshops: it is a right riveting read. That report highlighted the extent to which tenants were abused, forced and manipulated into damaging practices, whether it be prostitution, substance abuse or discouragement from work—I could go on. People are exploited in an unacceptable way.

The main reason that people are referred to supported housing is to receive the constructive support they need to transition back to normality, yet far too often, those people go backwards as a consequence of damaging malpractice. It is an issue that is popping up in more and more constituencies all over England, highlighting the need for prompt regulation. The sheer volume of money that landlords can make in this corrupt practice is so huge that once others learn of it, they jump on the bandwagon. It is a licence to print masses of money very quickly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he may resume his speech in a few moments.

Debate interrupted.

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgot to make a declaration of interest. My wife works for a travel company and, as there was talk in the debate about staycations, that may be regarded as a conflict of interest. I want to make the House aware of that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has placed his declaration on the record. That is a matter of record.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and what I think was her support for our scheme. She asked about the visa application process and the length and bureaucracy associated with it. As was announced last week in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, and as I repeat today, Ukrainians who have a valid passport can have their application turned around within 24 hours, but not in the way to which the hon. Lady referred, which was announced last week. It is time that, instead of manufacturing synthetic outrage, she kept up with what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are delivering. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has already had a go.

The hon. Lady asked about matching families and sponsors. We are moving as quickly as possible to ensure, working with NGOs and local government, that individuals in need can be found the families and sponsors they need in order to get people into this country as quickly as possible. I am grateful to her for speaking to people in local government this morning; we were speaking and I was speaking to people in local government 10 days ago to ensure that this scheme was capable of being delivered.

The hon. Lady asked why we are requiring matching in the way that we are. That is because our scheme has been developed in partnership with non-governmental organisations, which have welcomed our approach. We have been doing the practical work of ensuring that refugee organisations on the ground can help to shape our response in order to help those most in need.

I know that the hon. Lady wants to help. I believe that everyone in this House wants to ensure that this scheme is successful. She makes a number of valid points about the need for school places. That is why additional funding is available to every local authority that will take refugees in order to ensure that school places are provided.

The hon. Lady asked about wraparound care. We are providing additional funding to local government to ensure that the expertise required to provide those who have been traumatised with the support they need will also be there.

The hon. Lady asked not only about the rapidity of vetting checks, but about how the comprehensive nature of those vetting checks can be guaranteed. We have been working with the Home Office to streamline that process so that it is as quick as possible, but also to ensure, as she rightly pointed out, that we do not place vulnerable children in accommodation where they might be at risk.

In all those cases, every single point that the hon. Lady made has been addressed by officials, NGOs and those in local government to ensure that our scheme works. As her questions have been answered, it now falls to her to get behind the scheme and support those open-hearted British people who want to ensure that we can do everything possible to help those in need. It is time to rise above partisan politics and recognise that this is a united effort in which our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and those in NGOs are working with the Government to put humanity first.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has generated a great deal of progress in the last few days, but he will understand that we still have a long way to go. I do not want to bore the House or you, Mr Speaker, with my experiences in France last weekend, but I learned a lot from them. We need a meet and greet system, and there are other things that we need to put in place quickly if the scheme is going to work, so I would be grateful if he or Lord Harrington of Watford could meet me today or tomorrow to ensure that we avoid some of the elephant traps that face us if we do not get it right.

[Michael Gove]

Over the last 10 days, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with me daily to outline offers of help from his constituents and others. He is a model constituency MP and a humanitarian. Lord Harrington of Watford will meet him tomorrow to ensure that we can operationalise those offers of help.

Tyne Bridge: Celebrating 100 Years

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and also before they leave the room after the debate, and I also remind Members that the Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered celebrating 100 years of the Tyne Bridge.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to share with you and the Minister the details of the celebration of our fantastic Tyne bridge.

We often say of people that they need no introduction, and that is certainly true of the Tyne bridge. It is a great icon of the north-east, of our pride, our people, our culture and our engineering. It is one of the greatest bridges of the world and, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful bridge ever built—or it is when it is looking its best, which is not now. The Tyne bridge is a nonagenarian. It will be 100 years old in 2028. We want to celebrate it and the purpose of this debate is to find out from the Minister what he plans to bring to the party.

First, I will give a little bit of history. The roots of our Tyne bridge go back millennia. The first recorded bridge across the Tyne, near to the location of the current bridge, was the Roman pons aelius, which was built in about 122 AD. The Romans believed that all rivers had a god who blessed the community living by the water, and representations of the Tyne’s river god can be found across Tyneside to this day. In 1270, a medieval stone bridge was built, which stood for 500 years until it was badly damaged by the great flood of 1771 and replaced by a new stone bridge in 1781. That replacement was itself removed in 1866 to allow the taller ships that existed by then to pass up the Tyne, with the swing bridge being built in 1876 by the “Magician of the North”, William Armstrong.

In August 1925, construction of the current Tyne bridge began. High enough for ships to pass underneath, it was built for the new age of the motorised vehicle and to cope with the increased volume of traffic across the Tyne. Made of steel and granite, the bridge was a major feat of engineering. It was constructed using shipbuilding techniques by local shipyard workers—hence the steel rivets, which can still be seen today. When it was opened in August 1928, it was the world’s longest span bridge. I recommend that everyone sees the fantastic photographs of its construction, which can be found online.

The Tyne bridge is sometimes cited as a prototype for the Sydney Harbour bridge. In fact, although the Sydney Harbour bridge was not completed until four years after the Tyne bridge opened, work began on Sydney’s bridge first. Although the two bridges had the same design team, the differences between them are really quite striking, as was explained to me by Vin Riley, a local engineer and historian. The Sydney Harbour bridge is 1,149 metres in length and 48 metres wide, which makes it almost exactly three times the size of the Tyne bridge, which is 389 metres long and 17 metres wide. But what the Tyne bridge may lack in size, it more than makes up for in beauty, being more perfectly proportioned than Sydney Harbour bridge.

The Sydney Harbour bridge is simply flatter, as its nickname of “the Coathanger” implies. That makes for a gentler, less hair-raising experience for those who have walked the bridge arch—I have not done so, but I understand that it is very popular—but it also makes the bridge less inspiring. The arch of the Sydney Harbour bridge is thicker at its base than at its height. The Tyne bridge, on the other hand, is thinner at its earth-bound side and much broader at the height of the arch, which gives the impression that it is bounding up, soaring away, almost as if it were trying to shake itself free of its earthly constraints. What more apt symbol could there be of the people of the north-east, who have so often shown through generosity and social activism, through passion and protest, through hope and hard work, a desire to put an end to earthly pain and a determination to build a better, brighter and more just world?

That is not the only way in which the Tyne bridge represents our whole region. It connects the north and south of the Tyne and spans the region in its construction. It was built by Dorman Long, which went on to become British Steel and was based in Middlesbrough on the Tees. Building the Tyne bridge was a mammoth task, and workmen risked their lives working up to 200 feet above the river without the benefit of safety harnesses, helmets and ropes. One worker died—Nathaniel Collins, a 33-year-old scaffolder from South Shields.

The bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V. The King and Queen were the first to cross it in their State Landau horse-drawn carriage, as thousands of people lined the streets for the opening ceremony and 20,000 local schoolchildren were given the day off to mark the occasion.

It is particularly fitting that we are celebrating the bridge today, as it is International Women in Engineering Day. The Dorman Long design team included the first woman to gain entry to the Institution of Civil Engineers, Dorothy Buchanan. As a chartered engineer myself—though an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer—I want to pay particular tribute to her on this day. She said:

“I felt that I represented all the women in the world. It was my hope that I would be followed by many others.”

It is our hope, too. In 2018, more than 90 female engineers from across the country gathered in Newcastle to celebrate the bridge’s 90th birthday and Dorothy Buchanan.

Today, the Tyne bridge is an important part of our north-east transport infrastructure and is used by more than 70,000 vehicles every day. It was upgraded to grade II* listed status in August 2018 as part of the Great Exhibition of the North, meaning that it is a particularly important structure of more than special interest. It is also home to the furthest inland breeding kittiwake colony in the world. Any work on the bridge must be planned around their breeding season on the towers.

The beautiful granite towers, which stand at each edge of the bridge, used to be open to the public, but in recent years have been used only for the odd illegal rave. It is a huge pity that there is no longer a legal way for north-east communities to use that space. It has magnificent views across the Tyne, from the north and the south, and would be a superb exhibition space, restaurant or other community space.

But the bridge as a whole is not looking its best—far from it. I am regularly contacted by constituents and visitors to our city upset at the state into which it has been allowed to fall. A bridge of that stature and importance requires regular safety checks, repairs, preservation and upkeep. The Tyne bridge was last fully painted in 2000, and the paint system is designed to last approximately 18 to 20 years, so a new paint job is overdue. Repairs are needed to the road deck, the towers, the stonework and the steelwork, and a new drainage system needs to be installed. A major refurbishment takes time—some years—in addition to the tendering process, which may also take over a year. If the bridge is to be ready for its birthday, we need to start planning it now.

We want to celebrate the Tyne bridge in 2028, and celebrate our region. Just last week, Members of Parliament from across the north-east—many Members wished to contribute to this debate but were unable to be here—together with local authority leaders, the North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll and the police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Transport Secretary to request the £18.5 million needed to repaint the bridge from the levelling up fund. We want to ensure that it looks at its best, as a symbol of our region’s proud engineering past and, we hope, prosperous future. We want to make it fit for a queen—the Queen, in fact. We very much hope that the Queen will consider commemorating the bridge her grandfather opened.

We cannot allow the bridge to continue in its current state of disrepair. It represents our region nationally and globally. It is the familiar backdrop to the annual great north run, as 54,000 runners pass over the bridge, accompanied by a display from the Red Arrows. The bridge is also used for other large events, including hosting the rings for the 2012 Olympics, the 2015 rugby world cup, and, more recently, the 2019 European rugby champions cup final. It was the location for the amazing closing ceremony of Freedom City 2017, when we celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King’s visit to our city, and also the closing ceremony of the Great Exhibition of the North.

However, the sad fact is that the bridge’s last proper birthday celebrations were for its 75th birthday, hosted by local mayors from Gateshead and Newcastle. The Sydney Harbour bridge, on the other hand, is celebrated annually as the backdrop for the first fireworks display of each new year and had a large, organised 80th birthday celebration, with a special performance by musicians on the top of its 134 metre-high arch. The Tyne bridge, I am afraid to say, had nothing.

The Government make much of their levelling-up agenda, yet the north seems to be forgotten when it comes to celebrating our communities. I have raised with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade that they only seem to use London images—red buses and Big Ben—to promote the United Kingdom abroad. Why not the Tyne bridge and the Angel of the North? Global Britain must mean global Britain including the north-east. If this refurbishment does not happen and the bridge is allowed to continue in its current state of disrepair and neglect, I am afraid to say that it will become a different kind of symbol of the north-east. It will become a symbol of the neglect of the north-east, which has been forgotten by this Government—its great heritage and great future have been forgotten.

What support does the Minister propose to offer my region for this momentous celebration? I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us the Communities Secretary’s response to our levelling-up fund application—although I would be very much pleased if he gave a certain yes—but does he agree that celebrations of such a national icon cannot be left simply to the local authority funds? Does he recognise that 10 years of austerity have slashed local government spending? For example, Newcastle City Council has lost more than a third of its spending power since 2010, with city spending entirely taken up by statutory duties such as social care. Does the Minister agree that local authorities cannot be expected to fund such a major project? Would he expect Westminster City Council to pay for the refurbishment of the Big Ben, for example?

How will the Minister ensure that all the north-east’s communities benefit from the celebrations? How will he work with other Departments to ensure that great engineering stories, such as those of Dorman Long and—this is particularly relevant on International Women in Engineering Day—of Dorothy Buchanan, are celebrated as part of the festivities? We want to inspire another generation of engineers, particularly women engineers, with our celebrations. Will the Minister talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure support for protecting our kittiwakes?

In the north-east, we know how to give a party. The north-east will bring our bridge, our passion and our people to the party. What will the Minister bring?