Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his vital question. I have seen the reports he refers to and I totally share his concerns about the consultation process led by the Mayor of London. Clearly these plans will have a significant impact on the communities that my hon. Friend represents so ably, which is why we must get to the bottom of what happened and hold the Mayor of London to account.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of progress in meeting the levelling-up missions.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

We are advancing on all fronts, rolling out deeper and broader devolution across England, allocating extra resource to the poorest regions and taking steps to enhance productivity everywhere. In Portsmouth, £20 million has already been received through the levelling-up fund to transform the visitor economy, and nearly £7 million has been allocated from the future high streets fund. Portsmouth is also receiving £48 million as part of the national bus strategy.

[Stephen Morgan]

The Government promised that their levelling up plans would provide much-needed funding to communities such as my own, but last month Portsmouth South was once again deprived of funding that would have revitalised our city centre. Having rejected a bid twice, can the Minister confirm what action the Government are now taking to make Portsmouth city centre a place that local people can be proud of once again?

[Michael Gove]

I think we can all be proud of Portsmouth city centre, the visitor attractions and the historic communities that the hon. Gentleman is so fortunate to represent. I look forward to working with Gerald Vernon-Jackson and others like him across the party divide in local government in Portsmouth to ensure that the next bid can be successful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien]

One reason why mid-Wales has one of highest shared prosperity fund allocations in the country is precisely because we have taken rurality and the additional costs that come with it into account, and I look forward to building on that.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

T6. It is clear that the Government’s approach to levelling up is a postcode lottery based on their own political ambitions rather than a genuine desire to help communities. With Portsmouth’s high streets in dire need of investment and our city’s cultural attractions struggling with the cost of living, when will the Minister stop moving the goalposts and finally stop short-changing Portsmouth?

[Michael Gove]

That scored quite high on the cliché count, with “postcode lottery”, “moving the goalposts” and “narrow political calculation”. Instead of rehearsing for YouTube clips, the hon. Gentleman would be better employed looking at what we have done, not just for Portsmouth and Southampton, but for communities including Liverpool and Birkenhead, where this Government have been responsible for ensuring that local government receives the support it needs. If he wants to hang on to his seat, he would be better employed concentrating on delivering for his residents, not making party political points.

Aquind Interconnector

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed Aquind interconnector project.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this crucial issue, which is of great importance to residents across my city of Portsmouth, as well as many other areas impacted by the Aquind interconnector project or concerned by its relationships with Government.

Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth South, I have consistently represented the opposition of local people to this development, deemed a national infrastructure project. Many of my constituents have told me that they have been ignored by the developer and felt shut out of the planning process and, as Government get closer to making their decisions, they do not feel listened to by Ministers. That is why, in the limited time available, I wish to put on the record, first, my constituents’ concerns about the impact that the development would have on Portsmouth, its surrounding communities and its precious natural environment; and secondly, the concerns over the company’s relationship with a string of Government Ministers, some of whom are directly responsible for making decisions about whether the scheme goes ahead.

Whatever the alleged merits of the scheme may be, to ignore the overwhelmingly negative impact that it would have on Portsmouth residents, its businesses and the environment would be a dereliction of duty. I have heard from hundreds of constituents via my own survey work, through day-to-day correspondence or as a result of my engagement, alongside council planners, the local authority and community campaigners, to oppose these plans for Portsmouth and the surrounding area every step of the way. I have also summarised our concerns in submitting formal evidence to the examining authority and in raising key issues in written and oral questions in the House. I have written separately to successive Secretaries of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on several occasions, with the views of my constituents. More recently, I launched a public petition, alongside Portsmouth’s local Stop Aquind campaign, to ensure that they are given a direct voice to share their objection to this disastrous project. Today I want to reiterate residents’ concerns, as well as those of other interested bodies in my city, such as the local authority, the university and Portsmouth’s small businesses.

The construction of the proposed interconnector would take up to seven years and would cause untold damage and disruption to people in Portsmouth, businesses and our local environment. The proposed corridor where trenching is due to take place threatens to disrupt key elements of transport infrastructure, including highways that act as vital arteries to our city. The city council believes that there will be significant disruption to residents, ranging from noise at antisocial hours to dust and loss of natural light, in a wide-ranging area from Farlington Avenue, in the north of the city, to Fort Cumberland Road, in my constituency.

That belief has certainly been reinforced by constituents whom I have spoken to. One constituent has told me:

“If this goes ahead then I’m in danger of not being able to drive out of the road I live in to commute to work. Why should I suffer”

this impact on

“my livelihood for something that most probably would never benefit my family or our community?”

Another said:

“How can I look at my daughter and the future generation and say we did nothing and allowed business to come before saving our precious green spaces and protecting our ocean environment?”

I have example after example of constituents raising these points. I will happily share these with the Minister following the debate.

The congestion and disruption will inevitably have a detrimental impact on local traders, who have already endured 18 months of lost revenue and unprecedented uncertainty. I know that Aquind will also cause long-term disruption to Portsmouth’s valued open spaces, with the unmitigated loss of recreational space at Milton common and Farlington playing fields. A season or more of play could also be lost at Farlington, Baffins and the University of Portsmouth, with few alternatives in the meantime. In addition to the air pollution created by construction, there is a risk to our city’s precious wildlife at Milton common. I have raised before, during the planning process, the threat that the development poses to the Eastney and Milton allotments, which have been a lifeline for those who tend them, particularly during the pandemic. As it stands, the planning applicant has been unable to demonstrate to the people of Portsmouth any positive benefit that the project would bring to the city.

Throughout the process, there have been concerns about the transparency of the applicant and its apparent inability to disclose the information necessary to fully assess the impact of the proposed development. I am aware that changes have been made to the proposed route, but I remain concerned that more could be done to engage with those impacted by the construction and to avoid the worst of its effects.

Constituents also continue to be troubled by reports of the applicant’s previous donations to the Conservative party, and by the project company’s financial and domiciliary arrangements. In August 2020, The Times named Russian oligarch Viktor Fedotov as the ultimate owner of Aquind, but until then he had been able to remain anonymous by using a rare exemption in corporate transparency rules. The exemption can be made only if the individual successfully argues that their security is at risk. Yet sources told The Times that security and law enforcement agencies have no concerns that Mr Fedotov is at risk. If that is the case, why is Mr Fedotov so keen to hide his identity and his ownership of Aquind? Does that not concern the Minister? Will he set out what due diligence has been done on the project company and its directors?

The project’s financing is also unclear. Aquind’s annual accounts confirm that funding for the project is coming from loans from OGN Enterprises Ltd, which is based in the British Virgin Islands. Very little is known about that company, other than that it is linked to Offshore Group Newcastle, a previous venture of one of Aquind’s senior leaders, Mr Temerko, and that it collapsed into administration. We do not know where this money is coming from, who is providing it, or whether there is a complex financial structure behind the company in other secrecy jurisdictions.

Elements of the project give rise to further security concerns. Aquind plans to lay one of the largest data pipes in Europe alongside the electricity interconnector. It will hold 180 fibre-optic pairs, many of which will be available for hire by third-party clients, which could include telecoms companies, technology firms and banks. That raises similar concerns to those about the UK’s 5G network and Huawei.

In the light of the significant contribution that the project is expected to make to our national infrastructure, why have the company’s structure and finances been allowed to avoid rigorous scrutiny? Perhaps it is because Aquind has mounted a shady campaign to lobby successive Conservative Ministers behind closed doors, backed by heaps of cash. The Times reports that since 2012 the Conservative party has been given £1.6 million by Temerko or companies that he has directed, and £55,000 by Aquind since last August. That includes direct donations to a string of Tory Ministers. Just last week, the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), recused herself from speaking on the matter during BEIS questions because the Northumberland Conservatives had received funding from one of the company’s directors.

The Times has also uncovered a string of letters and meetings between an Aquind director—a Soviet-era oligarch—and Ministers past and present in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) also recused himself from handling the issue when he was Secretary of State after it was revealed that he, too, had received a donation and had shared a table with the same Russian-born businessman at the Tory black and white ball fundraiser.

In addition, letters obtained through a freedom of information request have revealed that the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), stated the Government’s ongoing support for the controversial project and agreed to lobby French officials to support it on their side of the channel. He has even taken to signing off his letters with affectionate handwritten notes. One October 2019 letter said:

“Excellent to see you at conference this year!”

All that makes a total mockery of the Planning Inspectorate’s independent examination and reinforces the points that the Labour party has made about this Government’s developer’s charter, which rides roughshod over local communities and prevents them having their say about developments in their area.

Despite the Government’s unashamed downplaying of the revelations, it is the Business Secretary who will make the final decision to give the project the green light. Any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman is able to make an impartial decision about the project is now a total fantasy. Any decision that he does make will be tainted by accusations of cronyism. Given the significance of the project to the city of Portsmouth and the country at large, we should not have to drag the truth out of Ministers kicking and screaming. As one constituent put it:

“To proceed with this project in the face of overwhelming opposition would send a message that the interests of your rich Russian donors matter more than the people of Portsmouth and local democracy”

On behalf of residents across Portsmouth, I want to place on the record our fundamental objection to the project. I want to make it crystal clear to the Secretary of State and the Minister today that the project must be rejected. In the meantime, I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Will he commit to immediately publishing all correspondence with Aquind? Will his Department conduct a further independent review of this deeply controversial project to drag the truth into public view? Beneath the cosy relationships that Ministers have with their billionaire donors are choices that affect the day-to-day lives of people in Portsmouth. They deserve total transparency from the Government and a real say in decisions about the project.

Fire Safety Remediation: Leaseholders

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Happy St David’s Day, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak about the ongoing issues faced by leaseholders in my constituency and across the country in securing funds for the remediation of unsafe non-aluminium composite material cladding systems through the building safety fund. I am pleased to have secured this debate on this important issue, which continues to cause great distress to leaseholders in my constituency. I am aware that many Members would like to contribute but will be unable to do so because of the virtual format. I will, however, endeavour to cover a number of points that those Members would have liked to raise, and I hope that the Minister will be generous with his time to allow others concerned by this important issue to place their points on the record.

Uncovered by the tragedy of Grenfell, now three and a half years ago, the process of remediating unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings has unfortunately become a lengthy and complex saga. I want to focus specifically today on the experience of leaseholders in non-ACM-clad buildings in my constituency. I want to highlight the ongoing difficulties faced by building owners and residents in accessing the building safety fund, as there are still fundamental questions about its scale and administration. I also want to discuss buildings below 18 metres and encourage the Government to address the flawed building regulation system that the ongoing cladding scandal has exposed. Most urgently, however, this a safety issue. Through no fault of their own, residents find themselves in potentially unsafe homes and vulnerable to huge costs that may still not be covered by Government funding. It is these residents—constituents in my city and across the country—to whom I would like the Minister to provide assurance this evening.

There are a number of buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding in my city. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government figures tell us that so far 23 of those have made applications to the building safety fund. Residents in these buildings have suddenly found themselves in unsafe homes and potentially liable to astronomical costs for remediation. This lets down everyone, from first-time buyers to pensioners. One of my constituents put it best when she wrote to me recently:

“I may be asked to contribute between 20,000 to 30,000 pounds towards remediation. I am retired and I have very limited income. I will not be able to raise this sort of capital. I am very worried about whether I’ll lose my apartment. I did not cause this problem.”

In many cases, these leaseholders are unable to sell their homes because of inconsistent EWS1 processes and so are consigned to long and nerve-racking waits to see if their building will obtain Government funding. In addition to the obvious financial pressures, I do not believe that the mental health and wellbeing implications have been properly discussed.

Since this debate was originally secured, the Government have taken welcome steps forward. The creation and enhancement of the building safety fund is welcome, but there are still large holes in the safety net. I have been contacted by leaseholders and property management companies who have registered by the original July deadline and have been given no information on whether they will be invited to make an application to the fund, no sense of the length of time they will have to wait for a decision, and no direct means of contact to obtain clarity on the situation. Separately, Portsmouth City Council has registered 14 blocks with the fund. The Government have rejected 11 of these so far, some on spurious grounds such as their being deemed to be in a “non-critical location”. Lord Greenhalgh recently suggested that there are about 1,700 non-ACM-clad buildings in need of remediation work. However, there has been no proper assessment of the number of buildings across the country that need work. The first come, first served nature of the fund means that applications will not be considered or prioritised based on risk, and there is no hard deadline for the completion of works.

Progressing remediation work on unsafe cladding systems must be an urgent priority if we are to avoid further catastrophes following the Grenfell Tower fire. It is therefore disappointing that the administration of the fund itself is preventing vital safety work from commencing and stopping leaseholders moving on with their lives. In the meantime, they have found themselves liable for yet more temporary safety measures, such as the 24-hour waking watch. While the Government have now established a welcome relief fund to cover the costs of this, progress on remediation has been painfully slow.

Health and safety must be the priority, and Ministers should focus on the rapid disbursal of funds in the immediate term, while pursuing developers and recovery costs where possible. I wrote to Lord Greenhalgh summarising these issues on 8 December, but dis-appointingly have received no response, despite efforts to follow up. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would provide an answer as to whether he will make regular updates on the processing of applications through the building safety fund, how the distribution of funds is being prioritised, and what steps he will take to speed up payments.

The prospectus for the building safety fund also states that buildings under 18 metres in height will not be covered. This was of little comfort to those in the buildings affected in my constituency. The loan scheme recently introduced by the Government will relieve residents of having to pay a lump sum up front, but ultimately it still leaves them liable to pay to fix a problem that they did not create and that will likely mean they will still struggle to sell. The Government have drawn an arbitrary distinction on this issue, which represents a piecemeal approach to making these buildings safe. If cladding is unsafe, it is surely unsafe regardless of the height of the building it sits on. The building safety fund should therefore apply to buildings of any height. The Housing Minister recently suggested data was being collected on buildings between 11 and 18 metres high. I therefore ask him to update us on the progress of that work, whether it includes the buildings in my constituency and whether he plans to extend the fund to cover these buildings.

Last week, this House considered amendments from the other place on the Fire Safety Bill. The Government had an opportunity to back Labour amendments that would have absolved leaseholders of burdensome costs, and set things right for the future by placing robust requirements on building owners and managers to implement recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry. The Government voted against both, so we have now reached the absurd situation in which this Government have voted against implementing the recommendations of their own review, which they promised to accept. The Building Safety Bill, which does include long-overdue reforms of the wider sector, is still without a date for First Reading.

That brings me to my final point. Residents and building owners find themselves in these situations because of a systemic failure of regulation stretching back decades. These buildings were constructed with materials that were approved at the time. There is now little incentive for anyone in the long chain of those involved, from contractors to regulators to building owners, to take responsibility for sorting out this important issue, because it now comes with a hefty price tag. Some developers have now tacitly accepted the need for a levy and they are to be commended, but it is not a holistic solution.

Since the tragedy of Grenfell, successive Governments have been irresponsibly slow at tackling this issue. Residents’ groups, campaigners and Members of this House have had to drag Ministers kicking and screaming to take responsibility for protecting residents in high-rise blocks with all types of cladding. And we still are not there. While recent, if overdue, efforts made by the Government to provide funding are welcome, we have yet to see an unequivocal commitment to removing costs from leaseholders, disbursing available funds as quickly as possible and recovering them from industry at a later date. On this last issue, the Government are not using important convening power to set expectations of developers, contractors and insurers that would benefit leaseholders who have been affected.

I would like to conclude by summarising my asks of the Minister. First, the Government must finally lift the cost burden from leaseholders and redouble efforts to recover funds from the sector. They should distribute funds as quickly as possible and set a hard timeline for the completion of remediation works. They must recognise and repay interim funds in full. Finally, they must ensure that legislation includes a clear regulatory framework with a common standard to make sure this never happens again.

Building safety issues threaten to turn dream homes into a nightmare for my constituents. The Government must keep to their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the consequences of their cladding crisis.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have the opportunity to represent the concerns of my constituents in this important debate. There are a number of buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding in Portsmouth, and I have been speaking to residents and building managers in Admiralty Quarter and Gunwharf Quays in my constituency. Residents in those buildings have suddenly found themselves in unsafe homes and potentially liable for astronomical costs from remediation. They are also unable to sell their homes. One retired resident, who is on a low income, has told me that she faces costs of £20,000 to £30,000 towards the remediation. They are also having trouble accessing the Government’s building safety fund. Delays to the implementation of the fund are preventing vital work from commencing and preventing leaseholders from moving on with their lives, and it is not clear whether the fund is large enough. In the event that they are not covered by the building safety fund, residents and responsible building owners will struggle to establish who is now responsible for the remediation, as it comes with a hefty price tag.

Health and safety must be the priority. Ministers should focus on the rapid disbursal of funds with immediacy, with a relatively low burden of proof and with recovery taking place later, as appropriate. Ministers should also look again at the 18-metre height qualification for applications to the building safety fund. If cladding is unsafe, surely it is unsafe regardless of the height of the building it sits on. Buildings in my constituency fall under that arbitrary distinction, and this is a piecemeal approach to building safety. The fund should apply to buildings of any height.

Instead of asking leaseholders and building owners to embark on a protracted search for accountability and funds, with bureaucratic and time-consuming procedures, the Government should take responsibility for safety, fund the work in full and recover the funds later, as appropriate, and get on with legislating to prevent this from happening again.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to contribute to this powerful debate. It is essential that we take time for reflection. As I wrote in the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment this week, education and remembrance are the only cures for hatred and bigotry. I echo the pledge that others have made today to fight racism and prejudice wherever they are found. I stand in solidarity with Members on both sides of the House in that commitment.

It has been a privilege to hear 20 poignant and emotional speeches today from hon. Members of all parties, none more so than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I am sure that his personal and family story touched not only me, but everyone in the Chamber.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in the Chamber, on his message that we have to do more to tackle the problems and the causes of antisemitism. He also spoke about the need for proper education. I thank him for his work as co-chair of the all-party group against antisemitism. I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for telling us in his maiden speech about his haunting experience of visiting the concentration camps, the importance of hope over hate, and his visions of a better present and a brighter future.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for her extraordinary bravery in supporting the Jewish community and those who have stood alongside it. She spoke about the heroic people who have brought inspiration to those challenging prejudice today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on his maiden speech and look forward to working with him on veterans’ support. He spoke passionately about the need to visit Blackpool. I must admit that my sister had her hen do there, but I will not say any more, because I do not want it recorded in Hansard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke, as always, with passion, and related other stories that I believe resonate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke about the industrial scale of the holocaust. I thank her for her contribution and what she said about the pride of our country in the diversity we enjoy today. We cannot allow communities to be pitted against each other.

Having listened to today’s debate, and looking back on my visit to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, one thing resonates above all else: the immeasurable tragedy of the holocaust has darkened lives on an infinite scale. That is why the salience of Holocaust Memorial Day and the continued commemoration must never be underestimated. The murder of 6 million Jews—the same number as the population of Rio de Janeiro—at the hands of their fellow citizens will always evoke shock and terror, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that the story is passed on to future generations. Why is it important that we reflect and remember? Because society is not yet free of the facets that led to this catastrophic loss of life. Still antisemitism plagues our society. Still British Jewish people in the country they call their own are subjected to persecution and racist attacks. One case recorded is one case too many.

Antisemitism must be drummed out with an iron fist and met with fierce opposition. In 2020, the need for reflection could not be greater. Last year, in my constituency of Portsmouth, South, we hosted D-Day 75 —a commemoration of those who kick-started the operation to liberate Europe and subsequently the concentration camps across the continent. Next week, we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of some concentration camps, and on 10 May we will celebrate VE day to mark the allied victory over the Nazis. To truly pay tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to overcome fascism in Europe, we must all act to ensure that such abuses never take place again. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of us all.

The importance of reflection and remembrance transcends that of commemoration. Reflection and remembrance are the tools we must use to prevent further atrocities. The holocaust was not the last genocide; therefore we still have more work to do. The loss of human life at the hands of others from Cambodia to Bosnia, and from Darfur to Rwanda, is testament to the fact that we must all do more to educate people about the perils of prejudice. Now more than ever, the harrowing story of 6 million Jews and members of other communities and faiths, including Roma, gay, black and disabled people, being murdered must be told. We must learn from the events of yesterday if we are to forge a tomorrow that is free from terror.

Education, remembrance and co-operation—these are the tools we will use to combat humanitarian catastrophes. When considering those three principles, it is imperative that we pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, whose relentless dedication to ensuring that the UK pays a leading role internationally in holocaust education, remembrance and research is commendable. They truly are ambassadors for change, and I join others in expressing admiration for the “Lessons of Auschwitz” programme, which helps to transcribe the terrors of the holocaust into the pages of history and ensures that the pain and suffering will never be forgotten.

On racism and prejudice, we must educate to eradicate, especially when hate crime in this country is at an all-time high. With around 300 police-reported incidents taking place each day and nearly 80% of cases not resulting in further action being taken, it is up to all of us to change the society to which we owe so much for the better.

If we are serious about making progress, we must be sincere in our endeavours for justice. First, we must look inwardly, applying scrutiny to ourselves. I have the honour of representing a city with one of the oldest Jewish communities in Britain, having been established in 1746. I have a responsibility to my friends in that community to lead from the front, which is why the Labour party must take on board and implement all recommendations brought forward by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The only test that matters is that the Jewish people have faith and trust in the Labour party’s ability to investigate cases of antisemitism. Anything else falls short and is a failure; anything else is shameful.

As we approach the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the closure of the theatre of war where the holocaust took place, the number of survivors grows smaller. I would therefore like to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who died in July 2019, Eva Kor. She was a Romanian-born Auschwitz survivor who relentlessly campaigned for holocaust awareness, founding the CANDLES Holocaust Museum in Indiana. Among her immeasurable feats of human strength, she testified in the 2015 trial of a former SS officer, the so-called “bookkeeper of Auschwitz”, who was accused on 300,000 counts of being an accessory to the murder of Hungarian Jews. If ever inspiration is needed, that takes only a short glance at the achievements and resilience of Eva Kor. I conclude with a quote from her:

“Let there be no more wars…no more gas chambers, no more bombs, no more hatred, no more killing, no more Auschwitzes.”

We all have more work to do to honour Eva’s memory.

I thank everyone for taking part in this important debate. It has been an honour to sum up for the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On 23 January, I will accompany His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the holocaust forum at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps, which brought an end to the murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children, but as we know, did not bring an end to the cancer of antisemitism. The Government have provided an additional £2.2 million for schools to teach lessons from Auschwitz and £1.7 million for visits to Bergen-Belsen, the camp liberated by British troops. I will continue to champion the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, including requiring all councils to adopt it forthwith.

[Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Council funding cuts under this Government have created a shortage of safe accommodation for vulnerable children, and now thousands of at-risk young people are being placed in care homes that are illegal, miles from their school or unregulated. Does the Secretary of State agree that responsibility for this injustice lies at the feet of his Government?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have recently published, and will be debating shortly, the most generous settlement for local government for a decade. It will provide a 4.4% real- terms increase in funding for local government and will include a £1 billion grant for social care. These are important issues that we need to take forward. I am aware of some issues with supported housing, for example, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), is taking that forward, but as a result of the economic renewal that the country is undergoing, after almost a decade of economic growth, we are now able to invest more in local government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House will support the local government settlement next month.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill (First sitting)

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I think we cannot go there, given the timeframe. You were right to give a warning. Do you have another question that is in scope? Stephen Morgan, you have one.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Q Do you have any concerns about the Bill as drafted? That question is for all panel members.

Annie Gascoyne: I will go first. I do not think we have any technical issues with the drafting of the Bill. One aspect of the Bill is that it effectively rolls over the current transitional arrangements from the last revaluation to the next.

One challenge with that is the point about fiscal neutrality; where to get upward transition, you must also have the downward transition. The challenge with that, of course, is that businesses that have seen their property value drop have had the asset base of their business affected and, effectively, their company value, and then they do not benefit from that. So, they are already in a difficult situation, where their asset base is reduced, and then you are saying that we need to keep the rates at the same level.

One challenge with the current Bill is that it requires those transitional arrangements to continue into the next revaluation cycle and those beyond that. That should be looked at to see whether it should continue. Those transitional arrangements were introduced because of the length of the last revaluation cycle and the fact that it spanned the recession. They were introduced for that reason and so we do need to ask whether they remain fit for purpose.

There is one point to make on the rates retention question. Although it is not directly about the impact on local authorities, there is one important point to note. Rates retention does mean that local authorities are less inclined because they have the option to give partially occupied relief. They are less inclined to do so because it obviously affects their income to pay for vital public services. A lot of businesses tell us that that does not really incentivise them, if they have got an empty building, to occupy or lease out part of it. There is an opportunity cost there in terms of economic potential.

Councillor Watts: The LGA is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. There are, though, a couple of points of detail on which we would welcome some further reflection. The first point is about resourcing the VOA. If you are going to do that, there has to be recognition that we need to resource the VOA effectively to do it.

Although we welcome proposals for businesses to inform the VOA more regularly about valuation changes to their properties that might inform more frequent valuations, we worry about the effectiveness of that without effectively having a duty on businesses to inform the VOA or without more powers for the VOA to ask for information about businesses, which is something we have called for previously.

We have a big concern that, if we are going to move the last date of the draft rating to 31 December from 30 September, once every three years, there are profound implications for the way in which local authorities set budgets for one year out of three. Local government was not consulted on that before it was announced, which is regrettable. Settlement timing has previously been based on the new rateable list and, if that is now not available until 31 December, that either pushes the state of the settlement into January, which would be incredibly problematic for local government, or the settlement is based on information not yet published, which is also less than ideal. That is something that needs to be resolved, though I am sure it is perfectly soluble.

We also think there are measures about business rates avoidance, looking at some of the successes of the new Welsh system, which has cut down on some sharp practice around empty property reliefs and a whole range of other stuff. There is an opportunity to look at that through this piece of legislation.

Adrian Blaylock: I agree completely with everything said there. The VOA needs to be resourced; we have already talked about that in the initial question. I have other concerns about moving the dates from the end of September to the end of December for the draft rating list. Local government have a return that must be submitted to central Government by 31 January. There are certain steps they have to take from receiving the draft rating list to be able to do that return. If we are not going to get it until, at best, early January, we are going to struggle for time to be able to do all the necessary work to get that return done.

I notice that it says in the regulations that it will be “by the end of”, so that is the latest date and it would be nice if it could be moved to earlier than the end of December.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Councillor Watts, you mentioned consultation with the local government sector on the Bill. What would you like to have seen?

Councillor Watts: The specific concern we have is about the shift in the date. It would have been helpful, I think, for the Local Government Association, on behalf of its member authorities, to have been consulted on it before the principle was announced. There are those arguing for that and we understand why the Government are proposing it—you can see that it makes some sense for businesses and others—but it has significant implications for how councils set budget, which, as we all know, is way in advance of the end of the financial year. My authority has finished budget setting by the end of November, because you have to run your statutory consultations from 1 January onwards. Therefore, this is a very late date indeed, and we would welcome any further dialogue with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about ensuring that the date works for local government budget- setting cycles.