Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committal

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The four motions on the Holocaust Memorial Bill will be debated together. Amendments (a) and (b) tabled to motion 6 have been selected. I will invite Sir Peter Bottomley to move the selected amendments at the end of the debate as we dispose of each motion in turn. The debate that now takes place may range over all four motions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this, we shall discuss the following:

Motion 6—Holocaust Memorial Bill: Instruction—

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Holocaust Memorial Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:

(1) That the Committee treats the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 2; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.

(2) The matters referred to in paragraph (1) are—

(a) the Secretary of State may incur expenditure for or in connection with (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial; and

(b) section 8(1) and (8) of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 are not to prevent, restrict or otherwise affect the construction, use, operation, maintenance or improvement of such a memorial and centre for learning at Victoria Tower Gardens in the City of Westminster.

(3) Given paragraph (2) and as the Bill does not remove the need for planning permission and all other necessary consents being obtained in the usual way for the construction, use, operation, maintenance and improvement of the memorial and centre for learning, the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to—

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

(b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should be given for the memorial and centre for learning, or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.

(4) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.

(5) Paragraph (4) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (1) and (2) above.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Amendment (a) to motion 6, in paragraph (2)(a), leave out from “memorial” to the end of paragraph (2)(b).

Amendment (b), to motion 6, leave out paragraph (3).

Motion 7—Holocaust Memorial Bill: Carry-over—

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Holocaust Memorial Bill:

Suspension at end of current Session

(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).

(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;

(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(ii) paragraph 4, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,

(iii) paragraph 5, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,

(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or

(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

(3) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;

(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, and to the prayer of that person’s petition, be entitled to be heard in person or through counsel or agents upon that person’s petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House, and the member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against that petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

(5) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

(6)If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

(8) In paragraph (3) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Motion 8—Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—

That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill”.

[Felicity Buchan]

The instruction motion, tabled in the name of the Secretary of State, sets out the matters that can properly be considered by the Select Committee when it hears petitions against the Bill. It is a custom of the House, and a well-established part of the process for hybrid Bills, that the Select Committee should not hear petitions that seek to challenge the principle of the Bill. The Second Reading debate that just concluded was the opportunity for this House to consider the principle of the Bill, and I am delighted that this House has given such support to the Bill.

It is familiar practice on hybrid Bills, for example with the current and recent High Speed 2 Bills, that the House should pass a motion giving instructions to the Select Committee on what precisely falls within the principle of the Bill. Such a motion helps to provide clarity for the Committee and, of course, for potential petitioners, so that no time should be wasted seeking to raise matters on the Bill’s principle, on which the House has already expressed such a clear view.

In this case, the motion specifies that

“the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to—

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

(b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should be given for the memorial and centre for learning, or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.”

If the House agrees to pass the motion, the Select Committee would still have a good deal of scope to consider matters relating to clause 2 of the Bill—notably, the extent to which the restrictions in section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 should be removed, and whether there should be any conditions on that removal.

[Felicity Buchan]

The Committee can consider the extent and any conditions on the memorial in Victoria Tower gardens, so yes, that can be considered.

The established practice for Select Committees on hybrid Bills is that they consider petitions from people who are directly and especially affected by the proposals in the Bill. I understand that the House authorities will publish guidance for people who are considering whether to petition against the Bill. It will ultimately be a matter for the Select Committee to decide which petitioners to hear and which points in the petitions to consider.

The motion is a necessary and important measure that supports the well-established principles and processes for dealing with a hybrid Bill. The amendments proposed by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), risks undermining those established principles and processes, and could create confusion on the scope of the Committee’s work, which would be unhelpful to the Committee and all participants, including petitioners. For those reasons, the Government do not accept the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Let me try to make an assessment of how many people are trying to catch my eye, so that I am able to gently point out that Back Benchers may have a relatively short amount of time to make their contributions. I hope that colleagues will bear that it mind.

I remind colleagues that if they speak in the debate, I want them to be back in good time for the wind-ups, including the Minister. If interventions are made on a speaker, it is normal practice to stay until the end of that speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Lee Rowley]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. That is the second time the hon. Lady has referred to sitting Members by name. I know that it is complicated because there are former Prime Ministers and former Secretaries of State who can be referred to by name, but, otherwise, Members must be referred to by their constituency, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows.

[Julie Elliott]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I and many other colleagues have noted, there is a way out of this for the Government. They can commit to the full National Audit Office investigation, which is so needed in an issue as important as this. They can let go of the idea of the Secretary of State picking the people he wants to carry out the investigation, as has happened with the investigation into the ecocide off the coast of Teesside, and let the NAO do its job, as it has the experience, capacity and independence to do this properly. There must be a reason why the Government do not want this to happen. I ask the Minister, as the Secretary of State is not in his place: why will he not support Labour’s call for a comprehensive, independent investigation by the NAO, so that we can get to the bottom of what has actually gone on? Does he know something that the rest of us do not? When the investigation takes place, can he assure the House that those who were engaged in the process will be able to speak freely and honestly, irrespective of any non-disclosure agreements in place? That is extremely important, because the investigation needs to be thorough, transparent, and, above all, trusted. I know that “trust” and “honesty” are not the buzzwords of this Government, and they are not the buzzwords of this process, but they need to be.

[Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)]

We all know why we are here. This has all transpired because of allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). Interestingly, he will not repeat those allegations outside of this Chamber and the immunity that it provides. At the end of May, I listened to “World at One” in which the hon. Gentleman was asked directly about the accusations that he made in the Chamber. Hats off to him: he performed verbal gymnastic feats of which Olga Korbut would have been proud. I have never heard anybody evade answering a direct question quite so well. I shall stop complimenting him now.

Mayor Ben Houchen and the Teesworks board were perfectly open to a National Audit Office review. I must declare an interest here: I sit on the Public Accounts Committee and I have every faith in the NAO to perform that review. However, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities decided not to go down that route, and for good reason—it is completely understandable why it made that decision. It would be an extension of the powers of the NAO, giving it jurisdiction over local authorities, which it currently does not have, and that could set an unnecessary and regrettable precedent.

There is to be an independent inquiry, which will follow the rules laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, and that should be sufficient for everybody. Sadly, those on the Opposition Benches once again seem intent on spreading scurrilous rumours and baseless accusations for their own political ends. They know that casting a shadow of doubt over the Teesworks site will deter investors—investors who would provide jobs and grow the economy throughout the region for our people. Labour Members once again want to keep the poor poor. They are the enemy of aspiration and the friend of misery, and only by keeping their big, red socialist boot on the throat of the electorate can they hope for re-election. Conservative Members choose to be positive and to support people into well-paid jobs. We seek only to bring good futures, regeneration, growth and opportunity to our region, a region that Labour has ignored and taken for granted for generations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I get the sense that there are quite strong feelings in this debate. I hope that everyone will bear in mind that we expect temperate and moderate language, and we expect the debate to be like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members that we still have a large number of speakers to get in before the wind-ups.

New Housing Supply

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I have to stop there as I have nearly finished. We can build good-quality, spacious homes in new developments—well-designed homes in well-designed communities. Learning from previous development of garden villages and new towns, we can avoid past mistakes and build attractive, pleasant places that people will genuinely want to call home. In many ways, this is a matter of property rights. What we are aiming for is the best balance of affordability, ambition and respect for local residents of any mass house building proposal currently on the table. They are based on a proven model of success. Let’s get building.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As colleagues will see, this is a very well subscribed debate. If we are to get everybody in, that requires speeches of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I remind the House of my advice about seven-minute speeches. Others will be squeezed if Members do not stick to that. I am sure that Kit Malthouse will provide a brilliant example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way.

But we will insist that the planning system is once again geared toward meeting housing need in full. To that end, if they are enacted as expected, a Labour Government will reverse the damaging changes the Government propose to make to the NPPF in relation to planning for housing. However, although reversing those damaging changes to national planning policy will be an essential first step, more far-reaching reform will be required if we are to overcome the limitations of a speculative house building model, a broken land market, and a planning system that is at once both too permissive and too restrictive. That will mean, among many other things, overhauling England’s dysfunctional planning structures so that the system more effectively facilitates strategic housing growth across those sub-regional areas with significant unmet need. That might be by way of extensions to existing urban settlements or entirely new settlements—I would argue that we need both in good measure. It will mean more proactive public sector involvement in housing delivery on large sites across the country, so that quality place making and long-term value creation become more than just the rare exception.

Let me make it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Labour’s approach will not be premised on a drive for units at any cost. We appreciate that many local communities resist development because it entails poor-quality housing in inappropriate and often entirely car-dependent locations, without the necessary physical and social infrastructure for communities to thrive, or sufficient levels of affordable housing to meet local need. We would argue that that outcome is a direct consequence of the Government’s over-reliance on private house builders building homes for market sale to meet overall housing need. Yet when it comes to house building, there need not be an inherent trade-off between quantity and quality. A Labour Government will be determined to see increased rates of house building, but equally determined that much more supply comes via a long-term stewardship approach so that, if not removed entirely, public opposition to significant development in contested areas should at least be much reduced.

Similarly, we reject the notion that building more homes must come at the expense of wider national policy objectives. In addition to increasing housing supply in a way that prioritises quality of build and quality of place, we will act to ensure that the housing and planning systems play their full part in addressing other pressing national challenges such as the drive towards net zero, the need for urgent nature restoration and the need to improve public health.

To conclude, it is not the only way of solving England’s housing problems and it certainly will not be a panacea for them, but building more homes remains the most effective way that we have of tackling almost all of the housing-related problems with which our country is contending. The Government needed to build more homes before the so-called planning concern group extracted its damaging concessions late last year. As a result of the Government’s appeasement of that group, we now face the very real prospect that house building rates will plummet over the next 12 to 18 months.

We desperately need a change of approach, but it is a change that the present Government and the Ministers on the Front Bench are incapable of delivering. It is high time that we had a general election, so that they can make way for a Government who are serious about ensuring that we build to meet housing need in full and boost economic growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister to speak, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that some colleagues were not present to hear the winding-up speech from the Opposition. It is as important to be here for the Opposition’s wind-up as it is to be here for the Minister’s wind-up. It is extremely discourteous not to be here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I spoke earlier, I should perhaps have referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an unpaid member of the board of the legendary Essex Cricket. I hope that Members will forgive me and that the record can be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. I know that she genuinely regrets not mentioning that, and I am sure that the House will appreciate the fact that, as soon as she realised, she came to point out that she perhaps should have declared it before.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of delivering new housing supply.

Leasehold Reform

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

For nearly a decade before I was elected as the MP for Ealing North, I had the honour of serving in local and city-wide government in the capital, working every day to tackle the housing crisis. If my memory serves me correctly, when I was working for the Mayor of London, as his deputy mayor for housing, he responded to a Government consultation back in 2017 entitled “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market”. I looked at that consultation document this morning and noticed that its introduction cited the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as having said:

“I don’t see how we can look the other way while these practically feudal practices persist”.

Two years later, following more consultation, the 2019 Conservative manifesto included a commitment to continue reform of the leasehold system. Three years after that, the latest Housing Secretary said that he would

“end the absurd, feudal system of leasehold, which restricts people’s rights”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 978.]

The current Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government seemed finally to be on course to do something at the start of this year, confirming that the Government would “absolutely” abolish the feudal system of leasehold and bring forward legislation shortly. Yet here we are, in May 2023, with the Conservatives apparently abandoning their promises to leaseholders. That is why, today, we will be voting to make the Secretary of State keep his promise.

I know the impact that the current system of leasehold can have on people, both as a former leaseholder myself and, crucially, from the experiences of the people I represent. Since I was first elected in 2019, I have been contacted by email, phone, in my advice surgery and on the street by leaseholders from all parts of my constituency to talk about the challenges they face. Let me mention just a few of my constituents here today. I draw the Minister’s attention to leaseholders at Oaklands on Argyle Road. They are facing the prospect of the freeholder adding another storey to their building without any meaningful consultation and despite issues of subsidence in the block.

Meanwhile, leaseholders at Chartwell Close in Greenford have reported great difficulties, costs and a lack of information from the freeholder when trying to exercise their right to manage. Leaseholders at Bridgepoint House, right opposite my constituency office, continue to face a very challenging time with all those involved in owning, building and managing their block as they try to remedy fire safety concerns.

Those are just a few examples of the many people I represent who live in private leasehold flats, and who far too often lack control over, or even a say in, what happens to the place in which they live. That is why I will be glad to vote for our motion today, to press the Government to end the sale of new private leasehold houses, to introduce a workable system to replace private leasehold flats with commonhold, and to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage in full.

The truth is that having security in our own home is a fundamental need for people and families in whatever tenure they live. The impact of leasehold means that, even when people are able to buy a home, which should bring that security, that basic desire for real security is often stymied by a feudal system of ownership. We might have thought—as, indeed, leaseholders across the country might have thought—that when Conservative Ministers said that they did not see how

“we can look the other way while these practically feudal practices persist”,

change was coming. We might have thought that change was coming when Conservative Ministers said that we should, “end the absurd, feudal system of leasehold, which restricts people’s rights”. But after years of opportunities to act, they have proven themselves simply unable to tackle the long-term challenges we face.

The truth is that the Conservatives in Government cannot tackle the long-term challenges we face; they have become a long-term challenge themselves. It is time to do the right thing, to follow Labour’s lead and to give people the security that they need and deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the wind-ups. I am sure that Members who have spoken in the debate will be arriving in the Chamber any minute now. As we have said on a number of occasions, it is important for them to be here for the wind-ups of both the Opposition and the Minister. I call the shadow Minister.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition. I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I intend to cite in my remarks.

This has been an excellent debate, featuring a great many thoughtful and informed contributions, and I thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in it. In particular, I commend the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Ealing North (James Murray). Together, they brought to life the plight of leaseholders across the country and powerfully reinforced the case for bold and urgent reform.

The sense of satisfaction, pride and security that is felt when someone completes the purchase of their first home and the keys are finally handed over is something that millions of homeowners across the country will recognise and remember with fondness. Given a free choice, an overwhelming majority of families would prefer to own their own home, and home ownership remains indelibly associated in the minds of many with security, control, freedom and hope.

Yet, as we have heard, for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream, their lives marked by an intermittent, if not constant, struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents, unjustified permissions and administration fees, with unreasonable or extortionate charges, and with onerous conditions imposed with little or no consultation. For all those leaseholders also affected by the building safety crisis, particularly all those non-qualifying leaseholders who the Government have chosen to exclude from protections in the Building Safety Act 2022, that dream has not just fallen short; it has become a living nightmare.

This is not what home ownership should entail. Under successive Conservative-led Governments, the dream of owning their own home has slipped away for far too many families. Labour is committed to addressing that failure and reviving the dream of home ownership for current and future generations, but we are equally determined to reform the leasehold system fundamentally and comprehensively, by addressing the historical inequity on which it rests and making sure it works in the interests of leaseholders.

The Government ostensibly agree with us on the need to overhaul the entire leasehold system. In 2017 they asked the Law Commission to suggest improvements to both the leasehold and commonhold systems and, once the recommendations were published in July 2020, they made it clear that they were considering how to implement all of them. In 2021 they established the Commonhold Council to prepare the ground for widespread take-up of a collective form of home ownership that is the norm in many other parts of the world.

In 2022 the Government passed, with our support, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act, which set ground rents on newly created leases to zero. Ministers assured us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, that that legislation was merely the first part of a two-part seminal programme to implement reform in this Parliament. In January this year, in an interview with The Sunday Times, the present Secretary of State went further and unambiguously announced his intention to abolish the leasehold system in its entirety—raising expectations, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham pointed out, among leaseholders across the country.

Yet not only are leaseholders still waiting for the publication of the leasehold reform (part 2) Bill, but, according to recent reports, the Government’s commitment to legislate for fundamental and comprehensive leasehold reform through that Bill looks set to be abandoned after the Secretary of State was overruled by Downing Street. If the substance of those reports is true, it will represent the latest broken promise in 13 years of Conservative failure. The media reports in question indicated that we will see a second leasehold reform Bill in the King’s Speech later this year, but they suggested that No. 10 will only allow the Secretary of State a limited one.

We are told that the Bill in question might include a cap on ground rents, more powers for tenants to choose their own property management company and a ban on building owners’ forcing leaseholders to pay to the other side any legal costs incurred as part of a dispute. However, it is still not clear whether that is the sum total of the measures leaseholders can now expect, or whether Downing Street might give the Secretary of State permission for a little more.

When the Minister closes the debate, will she therefore tell the House, and all the leaseholders across the country who are listening very carefully to what is being said here today, not just what the Government are committed to implementing at some point in the future, but what the major provisions in that forthcoming leasehold reform Bill will now be? Will they be limited to the three measures I just mentioned, or can leaseholders expect more—perhaps a prescribed formula for valuation in standard cases, or, as I believe the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), implied but did not explicitly confirm, improvements to freehold service charge protection?

If the Minister is not prepared to tell leaseholders what all the major provisions in that forthcoming Bill are likely to be, or if the Government have still not made up their mind after all this time, she owes it to leaseholders at least to clarify whether the Government remain committed to that Bill’s containing all those specific measures relating to enfranchisement, valuation and lease extensions that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) committed to implementing when he was Secretary of State.

As set out in a written ministerial statement of 11 January 2021, those specific commitments included the abolition of marriage value, capping the treatment of ground rents on all existing residential leases at 0.1% of freehold value and prescribing rates for the calculations at market value, a right for those with existing long leases to buy out the ground rent without the need to extend their term of lease, and the right for all leaseholders to extend their lease as often as they wish, at zero ground rent, for a term of 990 years. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State earlier mentioned several of those commitments, but again he was less than explicit that they would definitely be in the legislation. Will the Minister of State tell the House whether the forthcoming Bill will include them all?

But whether it ultimately includes merely a handful of worthy measures or all those explicitly committed to by the right hon. Member for Newark during the period he led the Department, what now looks certain is that the scaled-back leasehold reform Bill that the Government are finalising will be a far cry from what successive Ministers—and, in particular, the present Secretary of State—have led leaseholders across the country to believe would be enacted by this Government in this Parliament. When she closes the debate, the least the Minister can do is to be honest with leaseholders about what they should no longer expect from this Government in the way of leasehold reform, and make it clear, if that is indeed the case, that Ministers do not now intend in this Parliament to enact all the recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage made in the Law Commission’s three reports of 2020.

As well as that honest admission, leaseholders deserve an explanation as to why the Government are seemingly not now prepared to implement those sensible and proportionate recommendations in full. Finding adequate parliamentary time cannot be the reason, given that the Law Commission parliamentary procedure would reduce the time any such legislation would spend on the Floor of the House and enable the Government to complete the process before a general election. The House, as well as all those organisations that have been campaigning for so long on behalf of exploited leaseholders, deserve a clear answer today about the real reason leaseholders look set to be fobbed off with just a limited Bill.

To conclude, nearly 5 million households in England are trapped in an archaic system of home ownership that has its roots in 11th-century English property law. This House has legislated to give leaseholders more rights in the past, but none of those previous efforts fundamentally disturbed the historic inequity on which the system rests, and as a result, leaseholders remain at the mercy of arcane and discriminatory practices, to their detriment and to the benefit of freeholders.

I end by saying this directly to any leaseholders watching our proceedings today. Labour recognises that you have waited long enough for this House of Commons to truly deliver for you. We are determined to fundamentally and comprehensively reform the current system, overhauling leasehold to your lasting benefit and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will become the default and render leasehold obsolete. If the Government abide by the spirit of the motion tabled today and honour their commitments to you in full, we will work with them constructively to improve your lives, but rest assured that if they do not, a Labour Government will finish the job.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Now that we are all back, I want to reiterate once again how important it is for those who have contributed to the debate to get back to hear not only the Opposition’s but the Minister’s winding-up speeches. One way to ensure that that happens is to actually stay in the debate and hear what other people have to say—a novel idea, I know, but it can be well worth it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be old-fashioned, but I thought that when Ministers came to the Chamber to reply, they had to reply to the debate. The Minister has thanked Members from her own Benches who have spoken, but detailed questions were asked by Members from across the House. All we are getting is a speech written by civil servants, not a response to the debate, and she is quite clearly refusing to take any interventions from my hon. Friends.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I am not responsible for the Minister’s speech, but I am sure she will be referring to the contributions made by others during her winding-up speech—she is perhaps coming to that now.

I am also checking to make sure that the other Minister, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will be coming back to the Chamber. I am not sure that he gave apologies for not being here for the wind-ups, but we are just checking.

[Rachel Maclean]

I wanted to thank my colleagues on the Government Benches—it is a courtesy of the House that we do so, and unfortunately, they were not thanked by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I am very grateful for all Members’ contributions, and if they will allow me, I will come on to answering their questions.

As I was saying, it is our manifesto commitment to bring to an end the outdated and feudal leasehold system. That is why we have embarked on a significant programme of reform. One issue that has been repeatedly raised in today’s debate is escalating ground rents. The Government have tackled that issue head on through our Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, ensuring that people buying most new leases will not have to pay a penny in ground rents. For existing leaseholders who have already been saddled with unjustified rent hikes, we have asked the CMA to investigate such unfair terms. The CMA has secured commitments benefiting over 20,000 leaseholders, including the removal of terms that allow for the doubling of ground rents, with the charges instead reverting to original rates.

In 2021, commitments were secured from Aviva, Countryside Properties and Taylor Wimpey to return doubling ground rent terms to original rates, and from Persimmon to support leasehold house owners to buy their freehold at the original price quoted. Last year, similar commitments were secured from 15 landlords who bought freeholds from Countryside Properties, and nine companies that bought freeholds from Taylor Wimpey. A further four national developers—Crest Nicholson, Redrow, Miller Homes and Vistry—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I refer the shadow Minister to the remarks I have literally just made on that point. I repeat that we are committed to moving to a fairer, simpler and more equitable system. We are committed to the promises in our manifesto, as the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), set out in his opening remarks. These promises have been repeated by previous Secretaries of State with responsibility for housing. That is our ambition, and we will work tirelessly with Members from all parts of the House to make it a reality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I put the Question, I am sure that the Whips Office and those on the Treasury Bench will appreciate that concern has been expressed that the Minister who opened the debate is not here for the closing speeches, and I believe attempts are being made to find out what has happened. I assure colleagues that that will be pursued. I just give a reminder for those who wish to participate in the next debate that it is important to get back in good time for the Opposition wind-up as well as for the Minister’s wind-up, and one way to achieve that is to stay for most of the debate, rather than disappearing off for long periods.

Question put.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the mover of amendment 4, I remind the Committee that, while I am in the Chair, I can be addressed as Madam Chair or Dame Rosie, but not as Madam Deputy Speaker. We always have to remind colleagues of this as we move into Committee.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 64 (Hereditaments) of the Act—

(a) omit subsection (2), and

(b) in subsection 4(3), after “subsection” omit “(2)”.

(2B) In section 65 (Owners and occupiers) of the Act—

(a) omit subsection (8), and

(b) omit subsection (8A).”

The intention of this amendment is to abolish liability to non-domestic rates of advertising when a right is granted permitting the use of land for advertising (section 64) or when land is used for advertising or the erection of an advertising structure (section 65).

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 5, page 3, line 3, leave out “one year” and insert “five years”.

The intention of this amendment is to extend the delay in uplifts to business rate bills.

Clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 16, line 3, leave out from “(b),” to end of line 4 and insert “omit “fifth””.

This amendment would require local non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.

Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert “in every fifth” substitute

“no less frequently than in every third”.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert

“”on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”

substitute

“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert “omit “fifth””.

This amendment would require central non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.

Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert ““in every fifth” substitute

“no less frequently than in every third””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.

Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert

““on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”

substitute

“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.

The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

“(ii) the year beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning 1 April after that date”.

This amendment would make every year from now on a relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.

Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

“(ii) the period of three years beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning on 1 April from 1 April 2026 onwards.”

The intention of this amendment is to move towards each single year being the relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 16, line 15, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (4), for “different from what it would be” substitute “less than it would be””.

The intention of this amendment is to effectively abolish downwards transition.

Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

“(c) in making these regulations the Secretary of State shall ensure that no ratepayer pays a higher amount in business rates than the amount derived from multiplying the uniform business rate by the property’s rateable value.”

The intention of this amendment is to remove downward transitional phasing.

Clauses 6 to 12 stand part.

Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 21, line 31, leave out “paragraph 4G” and insert “paragraphs 4FA and 4G”.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 14.

Amendment 14, in clause 13, page 22, line 26, at end insert—

“4FA The definition of a person (“P”) for the purpose of paragraphs 4C to 4E does not include a person who is in receipt of relief of 100 per cent with a chargeable amount of nil.”

The intention of this amendment is exclude businesses who have nothing to pay from the duty to notify HMRC and the VOA.

Amendment 20, in clause 13, page 23, line 35, at end insert—

“4LA Paragraphs 4K and 4L do not apply if P is eligible for small business rate relief (for example, because the rateable value of the hereditament for which P is or would be a ratepayer is less than £15,000).”

This amendment would exempt businesses in receipt of Small Business Rate Relief Exemption from annual reporting if there is no change to report.

Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 27, line 44, at end insert—

“(5A) After paragraph 5ZF (inserted by subsection (5)) insert—

“Rebate in case of failure by valuation officer to provide confirmation

5ZG Where the valuation officer has not provided confirmation to P of a change following a notification by P that will affect the valuation of a hereditament within 60 days of the valuation officer receiving that notification, the total amount of non-domestic rates payable on that hereditament is reduced by—

(a) £100, and

(b) (b) a further £60 for each day until the confirmation is received by P, up to a maximum of £1,800.””

The intention of this amendment is to impose reciprocal penalties on the VOA for failure to notify ratepayers on changes in their rate assessments.

Clause 13 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 14, page 32, line 37, at end insert—

“(e) after paragraph 2C insert—

“2D(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a hereditament consists wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable; and

(b) the right is not severed from the occupation of the land.

(2) For the purposes of determining the rateable values of the hereditament under paragraph 2 above, the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to be let shall be estimated as if the adverting right did not exist.

(3) In this paragraph “advertising right” means a right to use any land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements.””

The intention of this amendment is to provide that the rateable value of hereditaments which consist wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable to be calculated as though the advertising right does not exist.

Clauses 14 to 18 stand part.

Amendment 18, in clause 19, page 39, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A)”.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 19.

Amendment 19, in clause 19, page 39, line 17, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 13 may not be brought into force until at least 6 months after guidance has been published by the Valuation Office Agency on the requirement this Act will place on business ratepayers.”

This amendment is to ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect.

Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.

New clause 1—Valuation Office Agency performance targets—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of the date on which this Act is passed prescribe by regulations performance targets for the Valuation Office Agency to respond to requests for updates to the central and local non-domestic rating lists and to challenges to the valuations on those lists.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the Valuation Office Agency to report at least annually on its performance in such detail as the Secretary of State may require in or by virtue of those regulations.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any reports made under subsection (2).

(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument and are subject to negative procedure (annulment by either House of Parliament).

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force until an impact assessment has been laid before Parliament.”

This new clause would require annual reports from the VOA on its performance against targets to be set by the Secretary of State.

New clause 2— Non-domestic rating: retail sector review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the retail sector.

(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.

(3) The review must assess the impact of non-domestic rateable values on competition between different parts of the retail sector, for example—

(a) stand-alone businesses operating from a single shop premises in a village, town or suburban high street setting,

(b) chain stores with multiple premises in city centres and out-of-centre shopping malls, or

(c) mainly online operations based on making deliveries from very large warehouses or fulfilment centres.

(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”

This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the retail sector.

New clause 3—Non-domestic rating: hospitality sector review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the hospitality sector.

(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.

(3) The review must assess the consistency of approach to setting of non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style, including—

(a) public houses,

(b) restaurants

(c) live performance theatres, and

(d) exhibition spaces.

(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”

This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the hospitality sector.

Amendment 25, in schedule, page 47, line 2, at end, insert —

“18A In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2268), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).

18B In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2005/758), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).

18C In the Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/2303), omit regulation 4 (Advertising rights).”

These consequential amendments would be required to remove references to advertising rights following the abolition of liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights effected by Amendment 4 to Clause 1 of this Bill.

Government amendments 21 to 24.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Aldous]

I shall start off where I left off in the Bill’s Second Reading debate. By way of background, the Bill is to be welcomed, although it is important that it is viewed as the start of the process of fundamentally reforming business rates and not the endgame. It probably would have been preferable to have heeded the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and for the Government to have brought forward a new consolidated business rates Bill, rather than to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988. That would have sent the message to businesses both large and small that real change was on the way. However, we are where we are and we must ensure that, ultimately, this Bill paves the way to reducing business rates to an affordable level, putting the business rates system on a long-term, more easily understood footing and removing those barriers to regional growth.

We must have in mind the ultimate end goal, which should be to get the uniform business rate multiplier back down from in excess of 50p in the pound to the more affordable 30p in the pound, which is where we started when the system came in in the early ’90s. To get to that, we need annual valuations, the abolition of the multitude of complicated reliefs and to digitalise the Valuation Office Agency. The Bill moves us in that direction—although perhaps a little too tentatively. Moreover, the duty to notify, which takes up much of the Bill, adds a bureaucratic burden on businesses and there are some unintended consequences that we should avoid. We must have in mind the need at all times for increased transparency. The amendments that I tabled have those considerations in mind.

Any adjustments to the business rates system should be guided by two principles: reducing the regulatory burden on businesses and, as I said, reducing the uniform business rate multiplier. We should look at the Bill with those considerations in mind and aim to move towards a sustainable system that provides a long-term revenue stream that businesses can find bearable, which has not been the case so often in recent years.

A properly functioning property tax system is critical to achieving a vibrant and sustainable economy. For most of this century, an outdated and unresponsive business rates system has placed enormous strain on many businesses, particularly those in the retail and hospitality sectors. Moreover, that strain has not been shared equally across the country. That illustrates how the current system is a hindrance—a logjam—to levelling up. We need non-domestic rates to be more responsive to changes in the economy so as to ensure that the system does not place an undue and unfair strain on businesses. If we can achieve that, we shall be more able to attract long-term investment into our towns and cities, and we shall be better placed to meet other vital policy objectives such as revitalising our high streets and achieving our net zero aims and goals.

Clause 5 relates to the frequency at which revaluations take place.

As I have mentioned, we need to move to the end goal of annual valuations, so that business rates are more in line with the economic outlook. I have tabled amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with that objective in mind. To achieve a responsive business rates system, valuations should be carried out as regularly as possible. The Bill is a good first step, and increases valuations from every five to every three years, but it should provide the flexibility for a future Government to require more frequent valuations —ultimately, every year. Annual revaluation could bring bills more in line with commercial property values, rather than lagging many years behind. Even with a three-year list and a two-year antecedent valuation date, occupiers will be paying business rates bills in early 2026 that are based on valuations from nearly five years beforehand.

Annual revaluations are essential if the Government are serious about modernising the business rates system. They take place in countries as diverse as Hong Kong and the Netherlands, and thus there is no reason why they should not take place in England and Wales. To conclude on this issue, the enormous administrative burden placed on ratepayers by the new duty to notify would certainly not be worth the distress and inconvenience it will cause if it does not ultimately result in the introduction of annual revaluations. In that context, I urge the Government to give full consideration to these amendments.

Clause 13 sets out the requirement for ratepayers to provide information—this is the new duty to notify, which, as drafted, places an unnecessary burden on businesses. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 have the objective of reducing that burden and imposing penalties on the Valuation Office Agency.

Amendments 18 and 19 relate to clause 19, and would ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect. The new duty to notify will place an onus on all ratepayers to provide the Valuation Office Agency with any information that they reasonably believe could impact on the business rates valuation. This is an enormous additional ask, not least for the 700,000 businesses which, up to now, have not been subject to business rates and might be completely unaware of what is proposed. The duty requires ratepayers to notify the VOA of changes to their properties within a 60-day window, and carries the risk of financial sanctions and even imprisonment if they fail to comply.

As a former chartered surveyor, I cannot see how such a burdensome duty on all commercial property occupiers—including, as I have said, current non-ratepayers—can be justified as necessary to administer a move to three-yearly revaluations. This duty might be bearable for businesses if it assisted the VOA in administering the move to annual revaluations. For small businesses, it will cause more pain than the gain that will be derived from moving to three-yearly valuations.

The new duty will leave many ratepayers wondering what might qualify as a notifiable change. The VOA is yet to publish any guidance; thus many businesses will take no chances and will notify the VOA of any changes to their properties. The VOA will hence be hoist with its own petard, as it will be flooded with paperwork.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises without any rating expertise, will turn to rogue rating advisers for help. Business rates advisers do not require a licence to practise, and many unscrupulous operators will see the new duty to notify as an opportunity to take advantage of small businesses.

While the ratepayer has a short period in which to notify the VOA of any changes to the property, as the Bill stands, the VOA has no such obligation. It can, in effect, respond to notifications at its leisure. I therefore propose a reciprocal provision that places on the VOA a 60-day timeframe in which to respond to notifications, with rebates to the ratepayer equivalent to the fines set out in clause 13 that accompany a failure to comply.

Clause 6 is a short and simple but nevertheless extremely important clause, which gives effect to the removal of downwards transitional phasing, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 17 November last year in his autumn statement. That was a positive step, but clause 6 as drafted does not permanently remove the threat of downwards phasing, which is a punitive tax that unfairly penalises occupiers whose rateable values have fallen. It is wrong to force those whose property values have fallen to subsidise those whose property values have risen.

The clause as it stands simply removes the requirement for transitional phasing mechanisms to be revenue-neutral. That means that the Government no longer need to fund any upwards transitional mechanism with a corresponding downwards transitional mechanism. However, that means that a downwards mechanism can be easily introduced by a future Government without any parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 11 and 12 would plug that loophole and permanently abolish downwards transitional phasing. If any future Government want to reintroduce it, they should come to Parliament and make the case for it, rather than bringing it in through the back door.

Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, which, from my perspective, is inequitable and unfair to businesses. As it stands, clause 14 exempts Government legislation from qualifying for the pursuit of a material change of circumstances. That would remove a vital check on Government and would allow future Governments to legislate with impunity at the expense of businesses right across the country, leaving them no recourse to challenge legislation that interferes with their ability to do business.

A material change in circumstances gives ratepayers recourse to pursue relief on their business rates when circumstances outside their control hinder their ability to do business. Clause 14 exempts Government legislation from being a qualifying reason for a material change in circumstances. I anticipate that the Government have included this clause because they want business rates to be a predictable source of revenue, even if their own legislation or action undermines the very rateable value of the properties occupied by businesses.

During the covid lockdown, to prevent the spread of the virus, the Government forced a number of businesses to cease trading. However, instead of accepting that there had been a material change of circumstances for those occupiers and allowing appeals to be launched, the Government introduced a locally administered compensation scheme. With clause 14, the Government are seeking the freedom to introduce any legislation at any time that might alter the rateable value of a property. That is both unprecedented and wrong.

Clause 14 can be viewed as a power grab that sets a dangerous precedent and tells occupiers that they will have to accept the detrimental impact of legislation on their ability to do business, with no legal recourse. Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, restoring the ability of ratepayers to claim a material change of circumstances, regardless of how the change in circumstances arose.

Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would amend and add to clauses 1 and 14 and part 1 of the schedule. They address a niche issue, albeit an extremely important one. The out-of-home advertising industry includes adverts on billboards, walls, digital posters, street furniture, bus shelters, buses and railway stations, which we see every day as we go about our lives and probably take for granted. The industry provides an important form of income for local authorities, and it is estimated that almost half the revenue generated goes back into local communities. These amendments would abolish the liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights.

The removal of business rates on advertising rights from the rating lists would have three advantages. First, it would increase the value and level of services provided by local authorities. Secondly, it would remove a competitive disadvantage to growth that impacts the out-of-home advertising industry, but that does not apply to its rivals—broadcast, print and online media. Thirdly, it would reduce the high level of inefficiencies relating to advertising rights applied through the Valuation Office Agency, local authorities and the out-of-home advertising industry.

As drafted, the Bill will directly and adversely impact the industry’s ability to invest in local communities. That runs contrary to the Bill’s objective of reducing barriers to business investment. In 2023, business rates charged on advertising rights are an antiquated, out-of-date and ineffective tax. Advertising rights are the only remaining right attracting liability for non-domestic rating. The liability to non-domestic rating in respect of sporting rights was abolished by the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would remove that anomaly.

In conclusion, I have enormous respect for the Minister and for his co-sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Although Treasury Ministers are not currently present on the Front Bench, I am mindful that the Bill has been drafted from a Treasury perspective, gathering in all that money. That is incredibly important—don’t get me wrong—but I suggest we also need to look at the issue through the prism of business.

Whether large, medium-sized or small, businesses need confidence, certainty and a fully reformed business rates system that takes on board some of the amendments I have put forward. A fully reformed system will mean that businesses will know where they stand, and business rates will not be the elephant in the room. People will be able to invest in, build on and expand their businesses with a degree of confidence, leading to increased profits. What that will do—joy to the Treasury—is increase taxation. The Bill makes a start and provides an opportunity for us to turn the vicious circle of business rates into a virtuous circle.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

As I stated on Second Reading, the Opposition support the measures in the Bill overall because it is crucial that local authorities and businesses have clarity as soon as possible so that they can prepare for what is to come. We have worked constructively to improve the legislation before it gets to them, but the Bill is still lacking in areas that small businesses are crying out for help with.

On Second Reading, I raised the matter of the pressures that small businesses, particularly small chains such as convenience stores, will be under as a result of the intensified reporting requirements. Although it is certainly important to increase accountability for businesses submitting their finances, stakeholder groups such as the Association of Convenience Stores and the Shopkeepers’ Campaign have drawn attention to the stifling impact that the new requirements could have on their businesses. Some small and medium-sized enterprises may resort to outsourcing their account reporting, risking another financial hit in return. We have yet to see the Government addressing those concerns or considering any alternatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [Lords]

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for ably taking up this Bill on behalf of Lord Haywood, whom I also commend for all his work, including on this Bill.

The integrity of our elections is essential to our democracy. We must ensure that people have faith in the electoral process, and this Bill is another step towards strengthening our existing voting laws, by safeguarding the secrecy of voting in our elections. This Bill will tackle concerns about so-called “family voting”. We have a secret ballot for a reason. The fact that current rules allow someone to be accompanied into a polling booth, out of sight of the poll clerk, and potentially influenced into voting a particular way, drives a coach and horses through the whole idea of ballot secrecy. This Bill strikes me as an entirely common-sense reform.

There should be no need for voters to go into the polling booth with someone else, unless they have gone through the formal process of requesting the assistance of a companion due to a disability or inability to read or write. I am pleased that this Bill does nothing to disenfranchise voters who may need assistance, ensuring that disabled voters and voters unable to read will continue to be entitled to assistance necessary to exercise their vote. Indeed, section 9 of the Elections Act 2022 includes provision for

“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for…persons to vote independently”.

That extends the very narrow and prescriptive provisions that preceded it.

I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition have been supporting this Bill, which will deliver measures to eliminate voter fraud and voter control. Ahead of the local elections, which we are swiftly approaching, we all have a duty, as parliamentarians, to encourage democratic participation. Having served on the Bill Committee for the 2022 Act, I welcome the measures the Government have taken to guarantee the security of the ballot. I also pay tribute to the excellent campaign being run by the Electoral Commission to make voters aware of the new requirement for photo ID in order to vote, which takes effect in May’s local elections. Finally, I am delighted to support my hon. Friend’s Bill and I look forward to it passing its Third Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. To fit everybody in, I am going to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

We have had plenty of Budget debates, but this Budget has not fixed anything. The Chancellor stood here, in the middle of the strikes and the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, and said nothing about those events in his speech—just like an avatar Chancellor. For months, the unions asked to meet, but the Government refused, hoping to break them. The unions were not moved, except to make a concession, but, like President Zelensky, their cause was right. Worst of all, as a former Secretary of State for Health, the Chancellor knows the cause of the junior doctors, because he picked a fight with them, allowing a few senior doctors to top up their pension while denying the many junior doctors a decent pay rise. We need to be able to recruit and retain our brilliant staff who take care of the country when we need it most: the public servants, like the late Ruth Perry.

I agree with the Chancellor on something—getting rid of local enterprise partnerships, which are totally unaccountable—but he is placing his faith in the Mayor, who is so far removed from my constituents. There was a press release in my inbox at 8.30 am on 14 March, the day before the Budget, crowing about the west midlands being an investment zone. I thought we had to hear about it here in the House first.

The Chancellor set out his Es. We know what happens to people who have too many Es, but this Budget was not hyperactive. It fixed nothing, not even the economic injustice of non-dom status. Nor did it impose a further windfall tax on the huge profits of energy companies while people need support with their heating bills. There is £10.4 billion on the table.

There was nothing about the problems that local authorities have faced over the years. In Conservative-controlled Walsall, we have an abandoned town hall with no one there. The former police station on Green Lane is a pile of rubble. Nothing has changed. Jack Lowe, who was 18, Bailey Atkinson and Akeem Francis-Kerr were murdered in and around the town centre. On Milton Street, there are prostitutes and drug dealing—shopkeepers are saying they are tired of seeing young people with money in their pockets. I thank the Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster and Chief Superintendent Phil Dolby for meeting me on Friday to discuss the situation.

Our Sure Starts, an important focus for families, are gone. Palfrey Sure Start was rated outstanding. There is a lack of health visitors to support families. There is no investment in schools; Blue Coat Church of England Academy is still waiting for money to fix its heating. There is no direct support for children or for those who have been excluded from school. The Chancellor talks about childcare, but his policy will not come into effect until 2024. And what about social care? There is nothing. This Budget fixes nothing. It does not invest in people.

The Chancellor wants to get people with disabilities back into work, but we cannot even get a lift to help people with disabilities or parents with pushchairs to access Bescot Stadium station. I wrote to the Minister, who told me to write to the Mayor; the Mayor told me to write to the Minister again. He said that there was no money, but he has £70 million of unspent Commonwealth games legacy funding. My constituents cannot wait until 2029 for access.

The Chancellor said that he wants us to be the best place to do business and work and the best place for research and development, but what about other research? It cannot all be about digital and computers. He truly is an avatar Chancellor. There was no explanation for the return to the Treasury of £1.6 billion that should have been allocated to Horizon Europe. Is that what is holding us back from joining Horizon? Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please ensure that it is paid over so our scientists can collaborate on their research?

There is a democratic deficit. I have outlined the stuff of life that keeps people in our communities going. The Chancellor missed out an E—E for excuses—but so far the country has given him an F for failure. He is failing our constituents, our communities and the country. There is an alternative. It is time for change, and only Labour can bring that change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Anthony Browne.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is absolutely nothing wrong with interventions, but we are so pressed for time that speakers should bear in mind that if they accept an intervention, I would appreciate it if they nevertheless stuck to the time limit. Those who intervene on others and who are still trying to catch my eye will move further down the list, because they will have had one chance already, and it means that someone else loses a minute, if not more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

The cost of living crisis is far from over and, sadly, this Budget offers very little to the people in Lanark and Hamilton East. Energy bills remain high, mortgage rates remain high and child poverty remains high, so if this is the best that the Chancellor can offer during a financial crisis of his own Government’s making, it demonstrates how perfectly out of touch Westminster is with the needs of Scotland.

The Chancellor spoke of ramping up welfare conditionality. This will only force more people into insecure work, offering no stability for future planning, and it is not enough to lift them out of poverty. The reality is that this has resulted in a series of punitive sanctions in relation to the administrative earnings threshold on universal credit. Does the Chancellor really believe that the solution to bringing about growth is to hammer down on sanctions?

The gender pay gap is still very much apparent, and this Budget will do nothing to address it. I fear that women are bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis, and this is fundamentally unacceptable in 2023. Calls to reintroduce gender pay gap reporting and to include ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting have all but been ignored. So can the Chancellor really claim that this will achieve economic growth and be truly inclusive, as the Conservative Government appear to believe it will?

While I welcome an increase in the national minimum wage, it is not a real living wage. It will not be enough to cover the cost of living, and it will not be enough to lift people out of poverty. It will not be enough to give people financial freedom to meaningfully contribute to the economy. When will the Chancellor listen to the overwhelming calls from stakeholders to completely commit to fully implementing a real living wage?

The one policy I will welcome is on childcare. We all accept and understand that good-quality, well-funded childcare is imperative to drive the economy, to get women and parents back into work, and ensure that those who are in work stay in work, as well as to tackle things such as pregnancy and maternity discrimination and the bias against women within the workplace who are assumed to bear the brunt of childcare, but this is simply not good enough. I recognise that it enables parents, particularly mothers, to contribute to the economy, but lip service to childcare is not good enough. This could be a truly transformative policy: it could achieve real economic change, reduce discrimination, reduce in-work disparity and level the playing field for the gender pay gap, but this policy does not go far enough. I hope the Government will consider that it is a great policy, and let us drive it further.

I want to make a final point about the Government’s record in the last 13 years. Their dogmatic commitment to Brexit has cut Scotland off from our largest international trading partner. It has cut us off from access to the EU labour force, and businesses in Scotland can no longer afford the labour shortages they have been hit with in the last 12 months. The reality is that the cost of living crisis is not over. I am calling on this Government to listen to the SNP, accept the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations for a rural visa pilot, and allow those who want to come here to work and contribute to our economy to do so.

The reality is that this Budget has only further deepened the isolation that people feel. It has pushed low-income households into further poverty, created hardship even for those in well-paying jobs and forced people to sacrifice their basic needs to stay afloat. It has exacerbated the mental health crisis and pushed businesses to the brink of collapse. It has encouraged people into debt and forced pensioners to turn their heating and electricity off in the depths of winter. I know that this is the reality for many of my constituents across Lanark and Hamilton East and across the UK, and I am calling on the Chancellor to make—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Building Safety

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has been indefatigable in his efforts on behalf of those affected by this crisis and of leaseholders more broadly. I should say, for his benefit and that of the House and the Opposition, that developers will be updating leaseholders on progress towards remediation quarterly on 31 January, 31 April, 31 July and 31 October each year—that will be public accountability.

I should also say for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House that 96% of the most dangerous buildings—those with aluminium composite material cladding—have either completed or started remediation work. There are other high-rise buildings with other forms of unsafe cladding—1,208 such buildings. They are in the building safety fund. More than 350 of those buildings have now been addressed, and more than £1.7 billion of Government money has gone towards making those buildings safe. Progress, but not at the pace that either of us would have liked. His point about insurance companies is well made, and I will follow up subsequently.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I have a couple of quick questions.

On the developers who have not signed, the Secretary of State is obviously talking about the situation in England. Does he intend to share that information with the devolved Administrations? Those companies may have interests in devolved areas.

What happens if a non-compliant building has defects that extend beyond fire performance matters? Further defects are often discovered only after the opening works have commenced and cladding has been removed—I am thinking particularly of acoustic and thermal non-compliance. Could the Secretary of State tell us which independent bodies will manage the work to identify such defects, and how will developers be held to account for them?

Finally, what is the Secretary of State’s plan when owners and/or developers of non-compliant buildings cannot be traced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to ensure that we have in the development sector, and indeed in the building safety sector, a range of companies and actors determined to do the right thing. Some of the changes that we are making—to the national planning policy framework, for example, and other steps that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will announce in due course—are designed to ensure that we have a diverse and energetic private sector market helping consumers and leaseholders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Clearly, any progress in this matter is welcome for the leaseholders who are still sat there, wondering when something is going to happen to their unsafe homes. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), is coming to the Select Committee next Monday. I apologise in advance that, for personal reasons, I cannot be there, but I am sure the scrutiny will be just as effective under the oversight of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

A number of issues have been raised with the Select Committee. First, in terms of the agreement that developers are signing, it was said to us that the remediation standards developers will have to work to will not be as strict as those under the Building Safety Act. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether that is true? Secondly, the Committee spoke to product manufacturers the other week, who said that they had had no contact with the Department for the last 12 months. Is that true, and if so, when will that contact be renewed, so that they can be held to account?

Finally, the Minister says, “I’m going to look at this” every time I ask him. Kate Henderson of the National Housing Federation told the Committee on Monday that the cost of remediating these matters will be £6 billion for social housing providers. They have only had a tiny bit of money under the ACM cladding measures. Will the Secretary of State look at that again? Otherwise, there will be cutbacks to the house building programme that they all want to engage in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One thing that I was aware of before doing this job but have become clearer on since is that there are actors in the property market operating in the UK who hide behind opaque corporate structures, operate offshore and set up special purpose vehicles in order to get building done and then disappear from their responsibilities afterwards. That is why we set up the recovery strategy unit, and it is no criticism of any of our predecessors, because we have not faced a situation quite like this before. The whole purpose of the recovery strategy unit is to identify the ultimate beneficial owner of the building who should take responsibility. Developers who are operating as responsible plcs have all signed this contract. That is great and a real step forward, but there is still more to do.

On the point about leaseholders, we have a system that we have legislated on—it is not perfect, but it is a big step forward—which means there is a cap on the individual liability of any leaseholder, and the taxpayer has committed significant sums. I think—and I suspect this is a view shared across the House—that the building safety crisis shines a light on sharp practice by a small minority of people in the broader property sector that we need to take several steps to deal with, including improved land transparency legislation and other steps that will ensure we do not have a butler economy in this country, whereby people operating in the property sector put profit ahead of people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I need to reiterate that I can only call Members who arrived at the beginning of the statement. It is the responsibility of Members to make sure they get here in time to hear the Secretary of State’s statement from the beginning. I assure Members that I and the other Deputy Speakers are even-handed about this.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this statement, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about people living in buildings under 11 metres. The Government were not prepared to extend full coverage to them but said they would look at those buildings on a case-by-case basis—a commitment that the Secretary of State repeated this afternoon. Could he tell us how that is going? How many of those buildings have had assistance? What criteria are he and his colleagues using in deciding where to offer help? Does it include, for example, cases where the developers or builders went bust years ago? Does it include buildings where the leaseholders still cannot sell their flats because mortgage companies will not lend on them, despite the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors advice?

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after “Social housing leases:” insert “prescribing and”.

Amendment (b) to new clause 1, after “comply with all the prescribed requirements” insert

“under regulations made under this section and section 10B”.

Amendment (c) to new clause 1, after “regulations under subsection (3) insert “or section 10B”.

Amendment (d) to new clause 1, after “sections 68 and 72 of that Act).”, insert—

“(8) Any provision of a lease or of any agreement relating to a lease (whether made before or after the grant or creation of the lease) is void to the extent that it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the lessor under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), or

(b) to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the lessee any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the lessee enforcing or relying upon those obligations.

(9) Where in any proceedings before a court it is alleged that a lessor is in breach of an obligation under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), the court may order specific performance of the obligation (regardless of any equitable rule restricting the scope of that remedy).

(10) Where a lease to which this section applies of a dwelling in England forms part only of a building, the implied covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling in subsection (1) included a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.”

Amendment (e) to new clause 1, leave out line 50.

Amendment (f) to new clause 1, leave out lines 79 to 81.

These amendments seek to strengthen Gov NC1 by clarifying the relevant prescribed requirements at 10A(2), making clear the extent of their application, inserting non-avoidance and non-penalisation provisions and detailing where courts may order specific performance of certain obligations.

Government new clause 2—Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members.

Government new clause 3—Action after inspection.

Government new clause 4—Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants.

New clause 5—Persons engaged in the management of social housing to have relevant professional qualifications—

‘After section 217 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (accreditation), insert—

“217A Professional qualifications and other requirements

(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide that a person may not engage in the management of social housing or in specified work in relation to the provision of social housing unless he or she—

(a) as appropriate professional qualifications, or

(b) satisfies specified requirements.

(2) Regulations specifying work for the purpose of subsection (1) may make provision by reference to—

(a) one or more specified activities, or

(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out.

(3) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, require—

(a) the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind,

(b) participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or

(c) compliance with a specified condition.

(4) Regulations may make provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body;

(b) the keeping of a register of qualified social housing practitioners;

(c) requirements relating to education and training before and after qualification;

(d) standards of conduct and performance;

(e) discipline and fitness to practise;

(f) removal or suspension from registration or the imposition of conditions on registration;

(g) investigation and enforcement by or on behalf of the regulatory body, and appeals against the decisions or actions of the regulatory body.”’

This new clause would require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.

New clause 6—Application of Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers—

‘Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must by order designate registered providers of social housing as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’

This new clause would bring registered providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

New clause 7—Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety—

‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 92K insert—

“92KA A Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety

(1) Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety

(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy or assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and

(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.

(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—

(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and

(b) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.

(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—

(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;

(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;

(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.

(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—

(a) the registered provider,

(b) the tenant, or

(c) any member of the tenant’s household.

(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.”’

This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.

New clause 8—Regulator duties relating to supported exempt and temporary accommodation—

‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 192 (Overview), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.

(3) In section 193 (Standards relating to consumer matters), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.

(4) After section 195 (Code of practice) insert—

“195A Regulation of codes of guidance issued by the Secretary of State

The regulator shall have a duty to inspect local housing authorities as to their compliance with any code of guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the Housing Act 1996”’.

This new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for the provision of supported and temporary accommodation, make the regulator responsible for enforcing any Code of Guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to local authorities’ duty to provide temporary accommodation, and give the regulator the ability to inspect local authorities for compliance.

New clause 9—Review of impact of this Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, carry out a review of the impact of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must make an assessment as to whether the Act has improved the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms, and in comparison to the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector.’

This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review of the impact of this Act.

Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(d) after paragraph (d) insert—

‘(da) to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in relation to the provision of social housing.”’

This amendment would add to the regulator’s remit an additional objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in the context of the provision of social housing.

Amendment 42, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(2) In section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) In undertaking its objective under subsection (2)(b) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State at least every three years on whether the provision of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, and must make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is so sufficient.

(3B) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any reports prepared by virtue of subsection (3A).

(3C) In undertaking its objective under subsection (3)(a) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State on the progress of the removal of unsafe cladding and the remediation of other fire safety defects in social housing, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on further action required.”’

This amendment would include in the regulator’s objective a requirement to report to the Government on the removal of cladding. It would also require the regulator to report to the Government on the adequacy of the stock of social housing, and lay a copy of any such report before Parliament.

Amendment 37, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Panel may provide information and advice to the Secretary of State about, or on matters connected with, the regulator’s functions and wider issues affecting the regulation of social housing (whether or not it is requested to do so by either the regulator or the Secretary of State).”

This amendment would enable the Panel to provide information and advice and to proactively raise issues affecting social housing regulation more generally directly to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 38, page 1, line 19, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) and (2A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.

Amendment 36, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(8) The Panel must be chaired by a tenant of social housing.

(9) The Chair is responsible for setting Panel meeting agendas.

(10) The majority of persons appointed to the Panel must be tenants of social housing.”

This amendment would ensure that tenant representation on the advisory panel is mandatory and that tenants are able to influence effectively what information and advice is presented to the regulator in respect of issues affecting social housing regulation.

Government amendments 4 to 10.

Amendment 39, page 17, line 16, leave out clause 21.

Government amendments 44 to 47, 11 and 12.

Amendment 40, in clause 28, page 23, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—

“(a) the inspection of every registered provider within four years of the commencement of this Act,

(b) the inspection of every registered provider at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, and”.

This amendment would ensure that the regulator is required to carry out regular inspections of every registered provider.

Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 28, line 39, leave out “24” and insert “48”.

This amendment is intended to probe why an authorised person must only give 24 hours’ notice to tenants under this section, whereas providers are given 48 hours’ notice.

Government amendments 13, 2, 15 to 34, 14, 35, 1 and 3.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am proud to be here today opening the Report stage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The Bill has been long awaited, but I hope we can all agree that the time we have taken to engage with tenants and stakeholders has helped us to ensure that the Bill is as robust as possible. I am grateful that Grenfell United, Shelter and others are able to join us today as the Bill reaches its Report stage. I must pay tribute to them for their steadfast campaigning on this crucial legislation. I am also grateful to Members from across the House for the incredibly constructive way in which they have approached this legislation. Thanks to the strength and breadth of engagement, we have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses to reinforce the Bill even further, and I will begin with new clause 1, on Awaab’s law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his intervention but for the constructiveness and diligence with which he conducted himself in Committee, which we can all agree was done with the best of intentions to get the best for social housing tenants. He is right that we need to make sure the process is done correctly, which is why we will be working with the sector and key stakeholders to get this absolutely right, while committing to ensuring that professional qualifications are required for the executives and managers of social housing providers to make sure that tenants get the experience they deserve.

The qualification requirements will be delivered through the competence and conduct standards, for which we have already made provision in the Bill. The new provision will require housing managers and senior housing executives to have, or to be working towards, a housing management qualification at levels 4 and 5 respectively. Qualifications must be independently regulated by Ofqual or, in the case of senior housing executives, can be a foundation degree. Relevant staff who are not already qualified will have to enrol on and complete the appropriate qualification within a specified timescale, which will be set following consultation.

We are setting qualification requirements for housing managers and executives because they are responsible for, and are best placed to drive, the delivery of high-quality professional services through their management of frontline housing officers, repairs and maintenance staff and customer service staff; through the day-to-day decisions they make about the delivery of services to tenants; and, crucially, through their ability to drive culture and change across their organisations. It was imperative that we found a way to introduce requirements that will not increase the risk of reclassification. By tightly defining the roles in scope and the qualifications that will be required, and by enabling staff to gain qualifications in post, we have been able to achieve that.

Importantly, the new requirement for managers and senior executives will work in tandem with the competence and conduct standards, which already require that the standards will have a broad application, requiring landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure all their staff involved in the provision of housing management services, including housing officers and repairs and maintenance staff, have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours needed to deliver professional, high-quality services to tenants.

The combination of competence and conduct standards for all staff and qualification requirements for all housing managers and senior executives will drive change throughout organisations. Together, they will deliver the transformation of the sector’s culture, staff professionalism and service standards that we all want to see.

New clause 3 adds requirements relating to the production and publication of an inspector’s report following the completion of an inspection. Currently, following the completion of an inspection carried out under section 201 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the inspector is required to produce a report and the regulator is required to share that report with the registered provider. The new clause provides that, instead, the inspector must produce a summary of findings, as well as a report, on any matters specified by the regulator. The regulator will then be required to share the summary and any report with the provider, and it may also publish all or part of these documents.

Crucially, new clause 3 gives the regulator the flexibility to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a full inspector’s report is necessary or whether a shorter summary of the inspector’s findings is sufficient. The changes also allow the regulator to specify matters for the inspector to report on, allowing it to use its expertise and understanding of a provider’s risks to determine the nature of inspections that should be carried out. The regulator continues to develop its approach to inspections and will work closely with the sector in this process.

New clause 2 and Government amendments 2 and 3 will give the ombudsman explicit statutory power to issue and publish guidance on good practice, alongside the power to order landlords to complete a self-assessment if the ombudsman has received a relevant complaint about the landlord. We believe these amendments are necessary in the light of the recent tragic case of Awaab Ishak. The housing ombudsman can play an important role in raising awareness of the key issues it sees within the complaints it receives, such as on damp and mould. This power will enable the ombudsman, following a complaint, to challenge social landlords to consider and improve their service to residents by ordering them to complete a self-assessment against the good practice guidance. This provides greater weight to the good practice guidance and should prevent further issues from arising. It will also mean that a great number of issues should be resolved at an earlier stage.

Government amendments 4 to 10 and 15 to 34 concern housing moratorium procedures, as set out in the 2008 Act, and restrictions on insolvency procedures imposed by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The powers of the Regulator of Social Housing in the event of a provider experiencing financial difficulty offer important protections for the social housing sector and protect social housing tenants by helping to ensure they can remain in their home. The housing moratorium provides time for the regulator to work with a provider and secured creditors to produce the best outcome in such a scenario.

It is essential that the legislation works as effectively as possible, and that we use this opportunity to make some technical changes that will help to ensure this. Amendment 4 will ensure there is no gap between the occurrence of an insolvency-related event and the beginning of a moratorium so that a provider cannot dispose of land. Amendments 6 and 8 make it clear that the regulator can both extend the moratorium and impose a further moratorium where it has made inquiries but has been unable to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider.

Amendment 9 relates to the process by which proposals about the future management of a registered provider made during a moratorium are put in place. It clarifies how the process works in a scenario where the regulator is unable to locate any secured creditors to agree the proposals. Not every registered provider will have secured creditors and, as such, the amendments will ensure that legislation continues to work effectively and that processes are clear in those cases.

Amendments 15 to 34 concern the giving of notices. They contain provisions on the signature and content of notices, and they provide powers for the regulator to deal with notices that have not been validly signed. Amendment 35 is a technical amendment relating to data protection, and it introduces a provision that clarifies the relationship between data protection legislation and part 2 of the 2008 Act.

I hope hon. Members see the importance of all the Government amendments before the House today and will support them, because I firmly believe they will make the Bill even stronger to deliver the high standards that we are all looking for in social housing and that we know all tenants deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. I join the Minister in welcoming Grenfell United, Shelter and others to the Public Gallery.

There is a shared recognition across the House that the lives of far too many social housing tenants are blighted by poor conditions and that, although there are good social landlords, too many still routinely fail their tenants. That shared understanding has underpinned the consensus across both sides of the House that the Bill is both necessary and urgently required.

Since the moment the Bill was finally published in October 2022, the Opposition have been clear that we support it and that we wish to work constructively with the Government to see it make rapid progress. Yet at every stage, we have been at pains to convey our strong feeling that the Bill could be strengthened in a number of areas, and to urge Ministers to approach our suggested improvements with an open mind and in the constructive spirit in which they were offered. That was how we approached Committee, and it is why we worked with the Minister to secure the Bill’s speedy passage out of Committee.

We pressed a range of amendments in Committee, including on three key objectives: the need to expedite the professionalisation of the sector; the need to ensure that the Bill provides, in practice, for the Ofsted-style inspections regime to which the Government are ostensibly committed to introducing; and the need to further empower social tenants. I shall take each in turn.

On professionalisation, we welcome the concession made by the Government in the other place regarding professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill, but we pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened so that it not only provides the regulator with the ability to set standards on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the management of social housing, but includes requirements to ensure social housing managers have appropriate objective qualifications and expertise. Our reasoning was simple: as a result of the progressive residualisation of social housing over the past 40 years, it is now overwhelmingly let to those most in need and often least able to challenge poor conditions, not least because the chronic shortage of social housing in England leaves most with few, if any, options to move if they receive an unprofessional service from their landlord.

The circumstances leading up to the fire at Grenfell Tower in June 2017 and those surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak in December 2020, as well as countless other instances of negligence and neglect that will have gone unreported, make perfectly clear what can happen when staff do not listen to their tenants, do not treat them with respect, do not respond to their concerns with empathy and understanding, do not deal appropriately with their complaints, and in some instances actively discriminate against them. In our view, it is therefore essential that those managing the homes of social tenants are properly qualified to do so; that they have undergone the necessary training to ensure that they are treating tenants fairly and providing them with the necessary support; and that they undergo continuous professional development—just as we expect those in other key frontline services to do.

In Committee, the Minister stressed the Government’s concern that giving the Secretary of State the power to stipulate mandatory qualifications for social housing managers through regulation could risk the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations to the public sector. We never dismissed such a risk out of hand, but neither were we convinced it was an impediment to strengthening clause 21, not least because we have never seen any evidence that suggests that mandating qualifications would automatically trigger a reclassification. To underscore how strongly we felt about using the Bill to expedite the professionalisation of the sector, we tabled new clause 5. However, true to the commitment that the Minister gave in Committee to explore in good faith whether there was scope to go further without risking reclassification, the Government tabled amendment 47 and others just before the deadline on Friday afternoon.

The Minister mentioned frontline social housing managers, unless I am mistaken. While we would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the definition of “relevant manager” in that amendment and others encompasses all those in frontline roles involving extensive resident engagement, such as neighbourhood housing, customer service and antisocial behaviour managers, and also a commitment that the Government will set out a timeline for implementation in the not too distant future and that the new burdens doctrine will apply in relation to local authorities, we are satisfied that amendment 47 and others address the concerns we raised in Committee. On that basis, we are happy to support them. I take the opportunity to once again praise Grenfell United and Shelter for helping to convince the Government to make the concession.

Turning to the issue of inspections, we welcomed the concession made by the Government in the other place to impose a duty on the regulator to publish, and take appropriate steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. I once again commend the efforts of Lord Best and Grenfell United in achieving that outcome. However, while recognising the need for the regulator to have a significant degree of discretion in formulating that inspections plan, we pressed in Committee for clause 29—which was then clause 28—to be made more prescriptive in two important respects. First, we believe it is essential that the Bill makes it clear that all registered providers, large or small, will be subject to inspections by the regulator. Secondly, we believe it is essential that the Bill ensures that every registered provider will be subject to routine inspections.

In resisting our amendment in Committee, the Minister made two principal arguments: first, that it would be unreasonable to bind the regulator’s hands by specifying that the inspections plan must include those two minimum requirements; and, secondly, that basing the system of inspections on a provider risk profile determined principally by size will ensure those landlords at greatest risk of failing tenants are accorded greater oversight. In our view, both those arguments are flawed.

On the argument that we should not bind the regulator’s hands, the Minister must surely appreciate that the Government cannot on the one hand commit to introducing an Ofsted-style inspections regime, and then resist specifying any minimum expectations as to how that regime should operate, however reasonable they might be. If the Government’s intention were to give the regulator unlimited operational flexibility in relation to the inspections plan, they should have been clear about that fact, rather than promising tenants that they would introduce an Ofsted-style regime, with the obvious connotations that that has in terms of universal coverage and a defined regularity of inspection.

On the argument that a risk profile based on a size threshold will best ensure tenants are protected, the Government have not provided any evidence as to why they believe that landlords with a stock of 1,000 homes or more are at the greatest risk of failing in terms of standards. We appreciate entirely the case for prioritising larger landlords with a stock of over 1,000 units, given that that will cover the vast majority of social homes in England, but there is no evidence to suggest that landlords with fewer than 1,000 homes are less likely to fail their tenants; indeed there are cases listed right now on gov.uk of such smaller landlords having been served regulatory notices for breaches. Nor can we understand, given that these smaller landlords are responsible for just 4% of England’s social housing stock, what the Government believe are the benefits of allowing them to escape regular inspection, given that doing so is unlikely to significantly reduce the burden on the regulator and carries the obvious risk that one or more smaller providers will fail their tenants as a result of the lack of oversight.

Voter Identification

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is right. An estimated 98% of people already have this ID and, as I have indicated, we are providing additional ID for the people who choose to vote but do not have ID at the moment, so that we can ensure that May is as successful as it can be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

If the proposal for voter ID is such a sensible and necessary requirement, as the Minister claims, can he tell us why fewer types of ID are to be acceptable for voting than the post office will accept for collecting a parcel? It would seem that there is some gerrymandering going on. Some types of student ID and Oyster cards for the under-30s will not be accepted, but Oyster cards for the over-60s will be accepted. How does the Minister explain that? If the Government are disenfranchising young people, how many would they see as a success in that regard? Does he also accept that what we are now seeing would be objected to in some of the more regressive US states?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right. That was also the case in the recent Wakefield by-election, where I believe the Labour candidate was selected on the basis of photographic ID. What is good enough for the Labour party should be good enough to secure the integrity and sanctity of our ballot box more widely.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

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

If I go to the polling station at the local government election, I can produce my passport, which I do not normally carry, or my driving licence. If I do not have either, I could produce my pensioner’s travel pass issued by South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. However, if I were a young person—