Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, related to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The Home Office is vigilant about who it allows to come here, and it conducts appropriate work to ensure that visas are not granted to people who are here to sow division and hate.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

We know from the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and its report on extreme right-wing terrorism that a number of people are radicalised not simply by shadowy organisations on the dark web, but at least in part by the mainstream media. How does the Secretary of State see his statement and his definition of the creation of a permissive environment—I am thinking of calling judges “Enemies of the people”—intersecting with the mainstream media?

[Michael Gove]

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

Tackling Islamophobia

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for the way in which she led the debate? I do not think there was a single important part of this matter that she did not touch on extremely well.

I will pick up on one thing: the issue of definition—not the APPG definition, which I will come to, but the United Nations definition. The UN describes Islamophobia as:

“a fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world. Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism, it targets the symbols and markers of being a Muslim.”

That is a very technical description. I will come back to the evidence of what it means to Muslims in Scotland on a day-to-day basis, and then to the rather less technical definition.

To stay with the United Nations for a moment, the recent report by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief found that suspicion, discrimination and outright hatred towards Muslims has risen to “epidemic proportions”. The UN says:

“Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and other…acts of terrorism purportedly carried out in the name of Islam, institutional suspicion of Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim has escalated to epidemic proportions”

and

“widespread negative representations of Islam, and harmful stereotypes that depict Muslims and their beliefs and culture as a threat have served to perpetuate, validate and normalise discrimination, hostility and violence towards Muslim individuals and communities.”

All that is deeply disturbing, but what does it mean in practice for Muslims in Scotland? Well, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who is no longer in her place, touched on that. The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on challenging racial and religious prejudice, and Newcastle University, have told us a great deal: 75% of Muslims say that Islamophobia is an everyday issue; 80% of Muslims say that they have a friend or family member who has experienced it; 79% of Muslims are fearful of experiencing it; 84% argue that social media increases it; 85% say that the broadcast media promotes it; and 89% say that the print media promotes it. We know, and it has been reported, that Muslim women are disproportionately targeted in Islamophobic hate crimes. Again, those findings—from real people—are deeply worrying.

What, though, is the official, measured scale of the problem in Scotland? Well, the number of charges brought for religious hate crimes in Scotland over the decade between 2010-11 and 2021-22 sat at a constant of about 600 a year. Sadly, the number of charges for all hate crimes in Scotland sat at around 5,000 a year. In only one year of that same decade has the number risen above 6,000, but in only one year has it fallen below 5,000, so there is a constant background noise of religious and other hatred. We also know from the statistics that 26% of all religious hate crimes are directed at Muslims. I am sure we would all agree that no right-minded person would argue that those numbers are anything other than too high.

Hearteningly, Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal Service take these matters seriously. It is reported that more than 80% of all the charges for religious hate crime do end up in court. That will cover a multitude of sins, but I believe at least that that matter is taken seriously. We cannot therefore dismiss Islamophobia simply because the number of those charged has sat constantly at 600 a year. We cannot disregard any hate crime, when the number is sitting at about 5,000 a year in Scotland. We cannot downplay the impact of Islamophobia, because, as we have heard from the cross-party group and others, the effect on people is widespread and profound. We cannot diminish the impact of Islamophobia on Muslims, or the rest of society, simply because a high proportion of the perpetrators are dragged to court, although I am glad that that is the case. And we cannot wish away the problem. Tackling it will need cogent, coherent and concrete action, with clear political leadership.

Let me return to the report by the Scottish Parliament cross-party group. Among many recommendations, it tells us that Scotland needs urgent education reforms to combat the scourge of Islamophobia—I am certain that is the case in England too. It tells us that Muslim women in Scotland are more likely to encounter Islamophobia than men, and calls for funding and support for organisations and initiatives that promote social cohesion and integration, particularly for Muslim women. I am certain that that demand would be mirrored in England as well. I will not go through the list of the many other recommendations the group makes, all of which I agree with.

I want now to get to the point on definition, because the cross-party group persuaded all of Scotland’s political parties to adopt the formal definition of Islamophobia. That was described as

“a landmark moment that will help tackle prejudice in Scotland.”

Members of the all-party group here will recognise the definition:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

If every political party represented in the Scottish Parliament can formally adopt that, I would agree with the Labour chair of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group, who said:

“I now urge the UK Government to adopt the definition so that we can challenge hatred and prejudice wherever it exists across the country.”

That does not strike me as being contentious; it ought to have been done already and if it has not been, it should be done very quickly indeed.

I want to end with a rebuttal to those who dismiss the issue of Islamophobia. I am talking about those hard of thinking who argue that there would be no Islamophobia “if only they”—whoever “they” are—“were more like ‘us’.” It is not clear what that means. I feel strongly on this and I wish to challenge that view by quoting something that UN Secretary-General António Guterres said when marking the first International Day to Combat Islamophobia, in 2021. He pointed out that anti-Muslim bigotry is part of a larger trend of a resurgence in ethno-nationalism, neo-Nazism, stigma and hate speech targeting vulnerable populations, including Muslims, Jews and some minority Christian communities, as well as others. He said:

“As the Holy Quran reminds us: nations and tribes were created to know one another. Diversity is a richness, not a threat”.

That mirrors what many have said; it is intolerance that is the problem, not diversity. It is incumbent on all of us to challenge intolerance, including Islamophobia, and to do so, to be brutally honest, whenever we see it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Parish and Town Council Precepts

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered parish and town council precepts.

This debate is about Morecambe Town Council and the huge parish council tax rise that it has inflicted on my constituents in Morecambe. The rise—reportedly of anywhere between 231% and 237%—is believed to be the highest such increase in Britain, bearing in mind that the base precept for this town council increased by 66% last year and by 50% in 2021-22.

I will not mention any political party or politician, as there are local elections, but I will name responsible officers. I have no political interest in Morecambe Town Council, because the Conservatives do not field candidates for Morecambe Town Council, as it has historically been mired in controversy and accusations of financial impropriety. I do not receive a bill from the town council because, thankfully, I live one street out of the catchment area. I very rarely, if ever, get involved in local politics, but I cannot not get involved in this issue of double taxation and needless spending that has inflicted a cost of living crisis on approximately 17,500 homes in my constituency, which equates to approximately 33,000 people.

As expected, my inbox has been flooded with messages from angry constituents who are paying an extra £100-plus —in some cases, even more—but have no idea for why or for what. I have forensically researched this issue, which is so complex and at times perplexing that I will try to articulate the main problems as best I can. All sources for my research—Companies House, the Charities Commission, media reports and Morecambe Town Council itself—are in the public domain, on the internet. For the Minister, I have printed the 2023-24 Morecambe Town Council budget, before, I fear, it is taken offline after this debate. It looks as if it has been written and amended copious times, because the more I read it the more contradictory information I find.

The main increase and the published reason in the Morecambe Town Council budget are set out on page 26, which includes the proposal for the vote; this concurs with the first report of the town council wanting to buy a large area on Morecambe seafront, known as Frontierland, for its own purposes. I have spoken to several town councillors—some have whistleblown to me and some have already resigned—and they all tell me the same story: they say that they voted on this budget without being given the full papers in adequate time.

There was a question in the full council meeting of the larger Lancaster City Council in February that the print for the billings in regard to the budget was not there, and it was asked why the Morecambe Town Council precept was not listed. It was believed that the precept would stay the same and there was silence from the city council members who were also town councillors. They evidently did not know about this huge increase—or just did not care.

I was told that the recent town council budget was voted on in a rush, and the controversial motion that has caused all the huge increases is set out in the box at the bottom of page 26, and states:

“Proposed earmarked reserve to be collected to safeguard the former Frontierland site for community use”.

The main controversy is that there have been copious reports in the press that Morecambe Town Council wants to buy the Frontierland area but it is already owned by the taxpayer. The city council, which owns it, states that it is not for sale and already has guidelines in place for development interests. Some town councillors who are also city councillors should already know that and make their declaration clear in their respective meetings.

The reports started to mutate, depending on what each political group on the town council had in mind for this piece of land. The proposals range from a park to a housing project to—the latest proposal—a community centre. It would presumably be a very large building, given the acreage of the land. All of these proposals are for land that is owned by the taxpayer and is not for sale. There have also been reports in the media of begging letters to raise capital to buy this land, but I cannot confirm that they are true because I have not seen one. As I have said, the land is already owned by Morecambe taxpayers as it was bought by the city council for £3 million. It is therefore unlikely ever to be sold for £1 million.

There has been an admission in the press that the town council has engaged architects, at the cost of £48,000, to design a community centre on Frontierland—a site that the town council has no ownership of, and it has not even sought or been given outline planning permission. It is needless spending and blatant double taxation. According to the town council clerk Luke Trevaskis in the local press, the council has also created a “£1 million community action fund” to respond to the call from residents for a community project to be delivered on the former Frontierland site.

I understand from section 32(2)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that revenues can be raised only from

“the expenditure which the authority estimates it will incur in the year in performing its functions and will charge to a revenue account for the year”.

A parish council cannot create a second reserve fund, but only a reserves fund up to a reasonable safeguarding of the running costs of the parish council. Interestingly, in the town council budget, the clerk has advised 25% to 100% could be claimed, which is extreme. That would be cheap in comparison to the actual increase for 2023-24 of up to 237%.

According to the town council budget, the action fund is a result of a public consultation with 1,600 responses. On page 14 of the same document, the town council published that there were 5,638 responses, not 1,600. Interestingly, on page 13, there is a detailed breakdown of 430 residents and the amounts they are willing to give. On the same page, it is claimed that there were 1,554 respondents. Sixty-five respondents—the highest bracket—were willing to give £100, followed by 55 respondents at £50, and 35 at £10. Some 100 respondents ranged from £2 to £15,000, which was obviously a resident having a laugh at the ludicrous proposals.

A total consultation percentage of 1.3%—or 430 people giving various answers—is not justification to charge my 33,000 constituents in Morecambe a £1 million bill for a vanity project that will never get built. What will become of that money? The answer can be found on page 14, paragraph 5.7 of the town council budget, which says that

“the Council must consider the level of capital receipt required to attract additional grant funding.”

In plain English: the town council wants to have a separate £1 million from the reserves to borrow against, based on the consent of 1.3% of residents. The taxpayer will inevitably be asked for more and more money over the ensuing years. That cannot be right.

Indeed, page 15, paragraph 6.9 says:

“Since 2012-13, the Government has had the power to require parish and town councils to hold a referendum if their precept increases by more than a set threshold. Thresholds are imposed on principal authorities every year. The Government has decided not to require parish and town councils to hold a referendum for 2022-23, however this policy has only been set for a period of one year and it is not known if the Government will impose such restrictions in future years.”

That is a giveaway. To me, it means “get as much out of the local taxpayers as quick as you can, while you can.”

There are irrelevant figures released by the town council, including the costs of the precept historically up to ’22-23, accompanied with volumes of national examples and comparisons that are not like for like. Most notably, there are scant figures demonstrated for the council tax bands across Morecambe for ’22-23. As an example, a band D dwelling for ’22-23 was £44.11. A band B for ’23-24 now costs £130.75. That alone is more than double the cost for a band D dwelling last year. I know, as I have seen a copy of an actual bill given to me by a constituent. Most houses are in band C, which is not demonstrated in the document. The costs are extortionate and this situation is causing a cost of living crisis for my constituents.

Morecambe Town Council has gone from £200,000 expenditure historically to nearly £2 million in the two years since the clerk, Mr Luke Trevaskis, arrived. By law, any amount raised over 200,000 must follow the local government transparency code 2015, which is a requirement of any parish council with gross annual income or expenditure exceeding £200,000. I have been told by a former town councillor that Mr Trevaskis said he would work part time for £16.50 per hour for 20 hours, or do a really good job for £26.50 per hour for 25 hours. That was supposedly to educate the town council. I have been told by former town councillors that he has since drafted his own contract, and his part-time salary is now nearly £60,000. He has had to be named by law as he earns over £50,000. It is clearly a part-time position, contrary to claims that it is full time, as Mr Luke Trevaskis is a serial town parish clerk: he recently claimed that he is town parish clerk to five other parish councils.

I cannot find a 2015 transparency code on the Morecambe Town Council website. I can find a link to the definition of a transparency code, but no detail. I have searched the budget for 2023-24, and the council’s accounts paint an alarming picture. The salaries have nearly doubled in 12 months, going from £185,000 to £360,000 for 10 staff, including two apprentices. That is empire building by officers who have seemingly replicated the larger district council for that small area of Morecambe only.

By law, any officer paid over £50,000 must be named. There are two officers earning that much: the chief officer and the community and events officer. The income from events for 2023-24 is estimated to be £30,000, so why is that officer being paid over £50,000? A £25,000 donation has been given to community causes, but two of the charities listed on the Charity Commission website that Mr Trevaskis claims the council gives to are a food bank that had a surplus of nearly £196,000 in the year ending 2021, and More Music, which had £111,000 retained—presumably in the bank—in the year ending 2022. I cannot see the donation in its accounts, but that is presumably because the year is not specified. It is good to give, but not taxpayers’ money to rich causes. Both charities have reserves higher than the town council, which has reserves of £105,000 for 2022-23. What is going on here?

There are three new officers earning less than £50,000, who are unnamed. There are administration and projects officers, a public realm supervisor, and six public realm operatives, including two apprentices—for what services? This is a parish council and its wages bill is now a whopping £360,000. It costs nearly as much as Lancaster City Council to the taxpayers in that small area. This is high double taxation. There are no names given for any of those titles, and it is rumoured that they are linked to some councillors—in short, nepotism. I cannot confirm that. However, the leader of the main political party on the town council wrote to me criticising my questioning as I was trying to hold this exorbitant spending to account. He naturally gave his open letter to the press and the local radio station, Beyond Radio, before I received it, but it was heavily redacted and he omitted the following important passages:

“The Town Council’s Street Rangers along with dedicated volunteers from the Morecambe”—

I redact his political party—

“have taken over the weeding service (funded by Lancashire County Council for the next 5 years)…Do you expect our Street rangers, weeding service and events organisers to provide their services for free?”

I expect the town council not to give jobs to cronies of political parties, and the taxpayer not to be charged again through the town council’s exorbitant precept for funding that is already in place.

I analysed the statement. Page 9 of the Morecambe Town Council budget shows £63,295 from the Conservative county council per year for weeding. There is an environment committee costing the town council £150,000, with no specification, yet on page 8, under the same category, it states that litter collection and backstreet projects cost £130,000 in 2022-23. Again, it is double taxation. The events officer costs over £50,000. There is an events budget of £100,000, which brings in a projected income of £30,000—a loss of £120,000. That is very telling.

There have at times been accusations of impropriety, and problems with financial matters involving the town council go back nearly a decade. Perhaps the Department can find out who those 10 public officers are—we already know two—and whether they have links to other councillors or officers.

It would not be the first time that there have been accusations of impropriety. There have been reports in the press about office holders in the town council and about self-appointed funding in the past. I alluded to financial misappropriation earlier. There was a report 18 months ago in the Lancaster Guardian with the headline “Independent audit finds fundamental weaknesses and failings within Morecambe Town Council”—I have attached a link for the Minister’s perusal. It was found, after an audit by Internal Audit Yorkshire, that there were serious problems with funds used for payments from different accounts to linked suppliers. Mr Trevaskis, the town council clerk, stated in the article:

“Morecambe Town Council will be considering the matters raised in the audit report and intend to publish the report alongside a statement on October 1 2020.”

A statement was published; it was a two-page apology and an admission of irregularities due to lack of officer scrutiny. The auditor was not paid and a court date was set. Mr Trevaskis appeared at Skipton county court only a few weeks ago, with the chairperson of the town council present, for non-payment to the auditor. I was told that a Daily Mail reporter was also there. The town council defence and counterclaim was immediately thrown out by the judge. The basis of the town council defence for the non-payment was given by Mr Trevaskis, who stated that the audit was not done properly and that there were losses. The losses were not specified; however, this relates to the appointment of another auditor and external work by the watchdog PKF Littlejohn, costing the town council a further £4,359.

This case is estimated to have cost £3,500 plus extra costs, bringing this debacle to around £10,000 in costs to the Morecambe taxpayer. That response was surprising, because a public statement released from the town council and Mr Trevaskis previously concurred with this audit. In the counterclaim to Skipton County Court, he also claimed, and I quote—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I want to check that he is not speaking about a live court proceeding, but one that is already completed.

[David Morris]

It is completed; I can confirm that. Thank you for your intervention, Mr Hosie, to make that clear.

In his counterclaim to Skipton county court, he claimed:

“Mr Trevaskis also sits on the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) for its local council award scheme, so has significant experience and knowledge of the requirements of auditing local authorities.”

When this court appearance was reported on Beyond Radio, covering the Morecambe and Lancaster district, he responded:

“Following a recent independent review by the National Association of Local Councils, Morecambe Town Council has also been recognised nationally for its high standards in transparency, responsible governance and exceptional community impact, becoming the first council in Lancashire to receive a quality gold award for its achievements in the last two years.”

Interestingly, there is absolutely no mention of him on the NALC website. The problem with these statements, if true, is that, if Mr Trevaskis is on the award scheme board of the National Association of Local Councils, this would not appear to be an independent gold-quality award for Morecambe Town Council.

This is not the first time that Mr Trevaskis has run a parish council where late or non-payment of bills has occurred. Indeed, his own parish council of Hale, which he ran at the time, had the bailiffs calling for non-payment. That was reported in the Liverpool Echo in August 2019, when it was said that the parish council was in chaos and financial transactions were being done on the back of event flyers.

Mr Trevaskis was also a director of a company called the Cheshire Clerk Ltd. That company has had an application to strike it off, yet it has been stopped from being struck off, as somebody made a complaint to the Companies House registrar in January 2022. He has not disclosed that as an interest as a councillor on his Halton Borough Council website. He has not submitted a confirmation certificate to carry on trading, yet it is still listed as active, presumably until whatever complaint prevented the closure of this company is resolved. That is not good or proper compliance from Morecambe’s proper officer, or chief executive officer, as he prefers to be known.

That is the fifth company over the years of which Mr Trevaskis has been a director. Most appear to have been struck off with no accounts. All companies are operating out of a residential address in Halton, near Liverpool. The house is obscured on Google Earth but, in a different setting, it is plain to see that it is a domestic residence. So why has office space increased from £6,000 to £15,000? I sincerely hope there are no expense claims by Mr Trevaskis for carrying out his duties from a spare room, as that would be subsidy to the other parish councils where he is also clerk.

The town council is now advertising to hire a financial officer, salaried at £30,000-plus. Given the recent court appearances, previous record, and any advice given that has been the cause of this debate, Morecambe Town Council should seriously question the expensive level of service and supposed expertise that Mr Trevaskis is charging the taxpayers for.

With local elections in full swing, again Mr Trevaskis emailed the town councillors—not other candidates standing—a crib sheet of excuses for why the exorbitant budget had to be inflicted on the taxpayers, apparently for their own good, because the candidates are facing fierce criticism on the doorsteps covering the town council. One excuse was to blame the Conservatives for requesting the town council to ringfence £80,000 for Morecambe lights. That is, again, incorrect and purposefully misleading.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I am conscious that this is only a half-hour debate and we are now 20 minutes into it. I hope there will be sufficient time for the Minister to respond.

[David Morris]

I am literally on the last two pages. Thank you for reminding me of the time, Mr Hosie.

The excuse was reported to me as breaking purdah, because on page 10 of the budget the amount is £20,000 ringfenced as lower match funding. The other 90%, which comes from the Conservative-led city council for the next few years, totals £425,000.

To sum up, since I became the MP 13 years ago, Morecambe and the surrounding area has prospered. We have had hundreds of millions of pounds in Government investment. Just to scratch the surface, there is the link road, sea wall defences, the prestigious Eden Project North and, very recently, more millions to finish off the majestic winter gardens. That is without going into public service upgrades, new builds and business partnerships. The area of deprivation in Morecambe has reduced by 10% since 2011, according to the Office for National Statistics. That has not been easy, and the antics of the town council put all that at risk, with its ongoing legacy of super-taxation, which is causing a cost of living crisis that is unique to my Morecambe constituents. I call for a Government taskforce to investigate this matter urgently.

Where does one start to sum up? We have what is believed to be the highest council tax rise in the country—237%. Some councillors and officers are not adhering to the Nolan principles. The budget has questionable content and fabricated figures. There is a wealth fund created out of Morecambe taxpayers to supposedly buy land that is not for sale, and architects have charged fees twice for a building that has had no planning permission, sought on land that the town council does not own and is already owned by the city council. There is an intention to borrow against this money, causing more precept rises and a further cost of living crisis for my constituents. We have a part-time clerk on over £50,000 who admits the lack of scrutiny in an audit report, goes to court, was okay and loses £10,000 for not paying the same auditor. We have wages doubling, £25,000 grants given to charities and political parties paying themselves twice from the taxpayer.

What is needed is auditor or an official regulator from the Department to ascertain whether the conduct of the town council is fit and proper and legally compliant, given the exorbitant tax rises and various excuses given to do so. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who assures me that he will take advice and see what he can do in this extraordinary case. I have full faith in him to do so.

Thank you very much for your patience and time, Mr Hosie. My speech has been long winded, but it just scratches the surface of a very complicated issue.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend has a distinguished record when it comes to helping people in conflict areas. I will work with the Home Secretary to ensure that our resources on the ground are positioned appropriately.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I have spoken to senior councillors in Dundee over the last week, and the city council remains open and willing to take and accommodate Ukrainian refugees. I also heard what the Minister said about working closely with the devolved Administrations who wish to become super-sponsors. Given that the Governments of Scotland and Wales know far more than I or the Minister do about their capacity and the capacity of their local governments, why does he not simply allocate substantial numbers of Ukrainian refugees to Scotland and Wales and let them get on with the job of providing sanctuary?

[Michael Gove]

That is what we want to do.

Social Distancing Restrictions: Support for the Night-Time Economy

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have made some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except when you are speaking.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social distancing restrictions and support for the night-time economy.

I asked for today’s debate because I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy. As the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I also represent a large and diverse number of venues, bars and clubs. Not only am I the MP but, like many Members, I am a patron of many of the venues in my constituency, such as Revenge and Legends, and I miss my nights out with my friends as much as I know the venues miss having us. When I talk to bar and club owners, they tell me the same thing: the uncertainty is killing them.

On 16 December, when covid cases were spiralling out of control, the Prime Minister insisted it would be “inhuman” to cancel Christmas, and he gave every assurance that it would go ahead. Pubs and restaurants had their staff hired, and the stockrooms were full and ready for a shortened Christmas season. On 19 December, just three days later, and after saying it would be inhuman, the Prime Minister cancelled Christmas. I do not say that he made the wrong call in locking us down. History will show that he was right to do so or, if not, that he should have done it earlier.

I raise what happened in December because I worry that we are repeating ourselves. The Prime Minister bumbles away through his interviews, assuring the nation that everything will be just fine with the road map on 21 June. Meanwhile, we have Whitehall officials briefing today’s papers that the date will be pushed back. What is it? My fear is that the harsh reality will catch up with the Prime Minister yet again and he will have to acknowledge what we already know: the 21 June deadline might have to be pushed back a few weeks to get everyone vaccinated. Those who will suffer are the workers and businesses who have trusted in good faith that they should work towards that date, although—granted—no cast-iron guarantee has ever been given.

The Night Time Industries Association conducted a survey of its members. Nine in 10 businesses fear that a delay in the full reopening of nightlife would threaten their survival; 85% require at least two weeks’ notice to open up, and over a third said they need four; 95% have already made financial commitments; on the logistics of opening up on the 21st, 54% have already ordered stock—as a real ale man, I know that that stock goes off incredibly quickly, so it has to be used in time; 73% of businesses have called in staff; 60% have sold tickets; 64% have booked entertainment; and 80% have already spent finances on marketing and promotional materials.

Louise from the Camel Club, a family nightclub in Huddersfield, told our APPG that she does not know under what conditions the nightclub will be able to open. She does not even have a rough idea of the direction that it will be going in. For example, when it opens, is social distancing likely to be required? What other rough ideas will be given? This has made it extremely difficult to even prepare. She is plucking things out of thin air rather than at least following guidelines that could change. That makes things difficult operationally and financially, so what guidelines can be issued so that clubs can at least work towards a general direction? Will they be able to open on the 21st? If not, can there be reassurances that financial support will be offered?

The pandemic has presented a real jobs crisis too. According to Unite, 48% of hospitality workers say that they will look for work in a different sector post pandemic. The industry is heading towards a skills employment crisis. The problem is that the so-called barista’s visa—the roll-out of potentially low-paid, exploitative apprenticeships on a visa—is not the way forward. There have been 650,000 job losses across this sector alone.

This is not just a problem for those in hospitality. There is a knock-on effect—for example, in the security business. The UK Door Security Association warns that six out of 10 supervisor posts are now unfilled in nightclubs, music venues, pubs, bars and festivals. The posts being unfilled risks the venues being unopened. That was one of the reasons we had to cancel Pride in Brighton: we just could not secure the security staff, as well as not having the underwritten insurance, because the Government did not underwrite that either.

So many door staff have been forced to find other forms of income. They have opted to use their security licences in more stable environments, such as retail or covid testing centres. There is an increase in resource demand, as venues have to adhere to covid requirements. If they are able to go ahead, many festivals will now be squeezed into a tight summer season. We also see increased demand in certain pinch points.

The Government must work with the associations, and with organisations such as Unite and other unions, in their proposed hospitality commission, to establish a plan for the sector, to retrain workers who lose their jobs and to ensure that those people do not face long-term unemployment. In my view, the kickstart scheme is not fit for purpose on hospitality. It has offered only 60 of the 1,260 placements to hospitality workers. Hospitality training programmes should be focused on upskilling the industry and creating new, quality jobs with guaranteed hours.

Business owners in the night-time economy now have debts equal to three years of trading profit. That is £2.5 billion just in debts that they did not have before the pandemic and that they will have on opening day. They are also having to potentially invest in social distancing measures that they do not know will even be implemented. That is why the Government need to give more guidelines on what might happen.

The moratorium on forfeiture is to be lifted at the end of this month, and no solution has been offered to address the legacy of rental debt wrought by the pandemic. Some 75% of night-time businesses say they fear bankruptcy or insolvency when the moratorium ends, if there is no solution to commercial debts. Some 80% of commercial tenants in the sector still face unproductive discussions with landlords. The situation requires the Government not just to issue guidelines or suggestions to landlords, but to require landlords to get around the table and negotiate with businesses. The Government should come forward with a package to ensure that businesses take no more than a third of the burden—effectively, one year’s operating profits—and that the rest is shared with landlords, other suppliers and maybe even the Government in long-term solutions that would mean these businesses do not go bust, which many are doing.

Regardless of what decision is made next week on social distancing, this issue is not going to go away. We need to hear some concrete proposals from the Minister on what long-term help the Government plan to provide to solve the crisis. Will he commit to matching the Welsh and Scottish Governments in their commitment to 100% business relief for qualifying night-time economy businesses in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he commit to delaying the rise in VAT for cultural, ticketing and other night-time economy venues in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he pledge that the Government will follow the science, allowing events with the mitigations that have been shown to be effective in trials, such as testing, vaccines or other measures, and allowing venues to open in certain situations?

I end with the words from Matthew from Chalk, a nightclub next to my constituency—100 yards across the border. He said to the APPG that he has invested his life savings in the venue—his blood, sweat and tears. Nightclubs are responsible for life-forming experiences for young people—and those who are less young—and are an integral part of our society. They must be protected. They are an integral part of the economies of many cities and towns across our country, and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. I hope the Minister can give Matthew and many others some reassurances about going forward in the next few weeks, so that we can start to get our businesses opened and our economy supported.

Local Government Reform: Greater London

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before we start, you can see that we are not oversubscribed. I would like the summing up to start in an hour’s time. Say everything you need to say, but please do not feel that you need to take all the time if it is not appropriate. I call Andrew Rosindell to move the motion.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform in Greater London.

Thank you very much, Mr Hosie, and good morning to all. I am grateful for this opportunity to open what I hope will be a wide-ranging debate on the structure and responsibilities of local government across London and the need to embrace the need for fundamental reform that will better serve the people of this great capital of our nation in the decades to come. I wish to begin a conversation involving both sides of the House with the constituents that we represent.

Our United Kingdom capital of London comprises an amazing patchwork of counties, cities, boroughs, royal boroughs, towns, communities, villages, hamlets and estates. I say “London” because that is the name of our national capital—in truth, in 2018, the lines of where London begins and ends are rather blurred. There is in fact much confusion between London as the capital of the United Kingdom, where Parliament and Government sit; London as Greater London, which was how our predecessors decided to construct the shape and boundaries of the city in the 1960s; and London as a wider region that includes what many people still call the home counties.

It is time to reassess whether Greater London, as created in 1964 with the formation of London boroughs, or the particular form of London government that was created in 1998 with a Mayor and Assembly, are fit for purpose in the years to come. We have reached a point where serious reform is needed. I hope all Members agree that we should not dismiss change as too difficult to tackle. We have a duty to look at how we can evolve London government to better suit the needs of Londoners and the wider region around our capital. Let us not be afraid to reconfigure how London government works and to embrace reform and renewal—in doing so, let us return power to local communities, where it belongs, and restore local identities that are rooted in English history but are now in danger of being lost.

As colleagues will know only too well, I am deeply proud of being the Member of Parliament for my wonderful home town of Romford, a traditional Essex market town that has existed since medieval times. Since 1964, it has fallen under the remit of the London borough of Havering, the borough on the most eastern side of what is now called Greater London. Let me tell the House that, despite more than 50 years of being a so-called London borough, Romford, and Havering generally, is still very much part of Essex. Whatever local government structures and boundaries are imposed by Whitehall, the true identity of local people has never been lost and never will be. People in my borough are Essex through and through, and they are proud of their heritage—indeed, becoming a London borough did not mean that Romford and Havering stopped being part of Essex.

Essex is a real place that has evolved over many centuries. It is a historic county with its own identity and distinct culture, combined with religious, social, sporting and business networks. Our postal address is “Romford, Essex”. We cheer for the Essex county cricket team. Our local regiment is the Essex Regiment, which has been awarded the freedom of Havering. Our Church of England parishes fall within the diocese of Chelmsford. Our identity is defined by geography, not by local government structures, which change regularly, depending on Government policy at the time and ever-moving electoral boundaries. A change in the administration of local services in the 1960s did not end our town or borough’s connection with the county of Essex. Today we fall under a London-wide authority, but my constituents continue to cherish their Essex identity. Good for them—I feel exactly the same.

This is not unique to Essex or any other part of Greater London—people from Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and indeed Middlesex also value their county identities. London boroughs may no longer fall under the remit of county councils, but we are still very much part of what are known as the traditional or proper counties of England. These are real places with historical, geographical and social identities that have existed throughout the ages and that should be fully recognised as integral to the identities of our towns and boroughs today, irrespective of local government structures at any given point. These structures have come and gone in London over the years, with the London County Council, the Greater London Council, the Greater London Authority, and now the Mayor of London—just as Havering was once under the Essex County Council, followed by the GLC and then the GLA. I hope hon. Members agree that none of those changes should be allowed to erode true local identities.

I raise that issue because it forms the basis of my next argument. Local government in London should be just that: local. It should be as localised as possible, so that local people are able to control what happens in their communities and towns or on their doorstep. Remote and centralised regional government that fails to understand local identities and that rules from the centre, forgetting about the needs of the wider areas of the London region, is never going to be popular. Just like the GLC before it, I fear that the GLA is heading in the same direction. The Greater London Authority and Mayor of London are failing to serve all areas within Greater London effectively. It is clear that the project has expanded too far, grown too powerful, and has become too interfering, too centralised, too bureaucratic, too costly and utterly remote from the needs of the real people, particularly in areas such as Romford and other parts of outer London.

Since the creation of a directly elected Mayor and an Assembly in 2000 provided for a so-called strong mayor model, there has been a clear contrast between the powers of the Mayor and those of the Assembly. The subsequent Greater London Authority Act 2007 accorded the Mayor even greater powers in respect of functions, spanning across planning, housing, large developments, skills and training. While it is true that the Assembly’s powers were also strengthened in 2007, the provisions were too little and too late to provide a proper check on the mayoralty. A comparative analysis of our friends across the pond in New York and of other cities such as Tokyo and Berlin show that their councils enjoy actual powers of scrutiny, which ours in London do not.

It is time to reform the whole structure of local government. I shall set out what the Government and we in the House should consider as a basis for reform. First, the powers of the Mayor should be strictly limited to what borough councils cannot do effectively for themselves. The so-called London plan should be dumped completely, and the power to decide how best to plan and develop our communities and boroughs should rest with the people who are elected to do that job. The Government can help by allowing the development of new towns beyond London, but councils must also play their part in ensuring we build the homes that are needed. Let us give boroughs back the power and trust them to make true local decisions in their local communities.

Why do we need a second tier for planning, when what is required is a more effective means to make local decisions in the interest of local communities, with a faster turnaround, so we can build the homes we need across the region? I accept that there is a need for co-ordination across the entire London region on things such as transport and major infrastructure projects, but the Mayor should be a facilitator or an organiser who brings together local authorities and public bodies to make things happen. Funding for projects should go directly to the boroughs, bypassing the bureaucracy at City Hall.

Secondly, policing should go back to being truly local. Each borough should have its own borough commander, and the tri-borough system should be ended or reformed. The leader of each council or their deputy should have the political responsibility for policing within that borough. Powers currently centralised in City Hall should come back to the town hall. I believe that leaders of boroughs are better placed to respond to the needs of their communities and to work with a dedicated police force, which knows and understands its patch better than anyone else.

Thirdly, the London Assembly should be replaced with something like a council of London, comprised of elected council leaders from the region. I say “the region”, because this goes way beyond the now outdated boundaries of the 1960s model of Greater London. Transport affects the people of a much wider area—I would call it “the UK capital region”. The slimmed-down, London-wide authority should primarily focus on transport, which clearly must be considered regionally as it goes way beyond the London boroughs. The M25 extends way beyond Greater London, and motorways, A roads and an expanding road network lead into London. The London Underground stretches from Amersham to Epping, neither of which falls within the Greater London boundaries, yet they have underground stations. Trains bring in commuters from across the south-east and other parts of the region. Airports stretch from London Heathrow to London Southend, and include London Luton, London Stansted and London Gatwick, most of which are not in Greater London. There needs to be a serious rethink of transport in the entire region, and that is what I believe should be the focus of the newly restructured authority for the London region. It is no longer relevant to think of transport just in the context of Greater London. That outdated model needs to go.

The new council of democratically elected leaders would have real authority to speak up for their areas, and they would cost a lot less than the current Assembly. They would understand what is required locally because they would be elected locally and would have an incentive to make things work for their boroughs. With a much stronger hand, they would also be empowered to scrutinise the Mayor—or the first leader, as I would rename the role—to ensure that everything they do is for the purpose of facilitating services rather than becoming an alternative centre of political power away from local communities.

We must also respect and appreciate the distinctiveness of London’s areas. It is ludicrous that the Mayor of London has such an expansive and supreme authority over a vast swathe of southern England. The City of Westminster, with all its grandeur, has very little in common with boroughs such as Havering, Hillingdon, Bromley or Enfield. Across our region are districts with totally different needs, but as power has become more centralised, local needs have become more neglected. It is time for reform.

The unfair allocation of funds is also a major issue in boroughs such as mine—the London Borough of Havering has been scandalously impacted by inadequate funding settlements over the decades due to flaws in the current formula and funding system. The Minister may not be aware that Havering is the lowest-funded east London borough per head of population. Some London boroughs receive more than twice as much per head. How can that be right? That is despite Havering’s having the highest proportion of elderly people across London, many of whom are deeply reliant on social care provision. That dire funding shortfall has forced my council drastically to reduce spending or increase council tax just to stay afloat, yet we send £400 a year per head of population to City Hall. The result is that council tax on a £4.5 million property in Westminster is substantially less than it is on a £365,000 property in Havering. How can that be right? That huge disparity must be addressed. It punishes lifelong residents of the borough and leaves many pensioners—it particularly affects elderly people—struggling to get by.

Devolving power back to local councils is exactly what a Conservative Government should be aiming to do. Why should councils not have the ability to come together to take on the management of public services in the area for which they are responsible? If Havering Council wishes to take over the management of the NHS, why should it not be given the opportunity to do so? If it prepared a business case, worked out the finances and submitted a bid to the Government, and if—and only if—the bid stacked up, why should it not be able to manage health services in the borough?

It is unlikely that one council could do that alone, but a group of councils could. For instance, if Havering formed a group with Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, with Brentwood and Epping—the boroughs on the Essex side of my constituency—or with whatever other grouping came together, and put in a bid for an integrated service to operate the NHS, an adult college or some other public body, would that not be the obvious way to devolve power back to our local communities? That would give real democratic control over large areas of the state and allow many different models to be developed. Let us think out of the box and embrace such new ideas. I believe we must empower local boroughs in London to take back control—they know what their local communities need best—and end the never-ending centralisation of power in City Hall or Whitehall.

London, as the UK’s capital, needs clearly defined boundaries. The City of London has always been the heart of our capital for trade and finance, with the City of Westminster as the centre of Parliament and Government, but our capital is wider than that. It includes some or all other central areas—boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, and parts of Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and so on. That is the central capital area. It is simply not right to say that the entirety of Greater London is the capital of the UK—that is a big confusion. Very few people living in towns such as Romford, Sutton, Enfield, Bexley, Croydon or Ruislip consider themselves to be living in the capital. Greater London is not the capital; the central area is the capital. It is time we properly defined where the capital actually starts and ends. It should be the central area that I have described. It should include the central areas where special measures for policing, security, transport and development are required to suit the needs of a global city. Beyond that, different priorities are needed for the wider London region beyond the actual capital. I urge the Government to take powers away from City Hall and restore them for towns and boroughs beyond the central London area.

Finally, I believe that it is also time to review the boundaries and names of London boroughs. So many anomalies divide communities because old boundaries have not been reviewed for decades. They are no longer relevant and it is time they were reviewed to suit local communities. To give examples from my own area, Rush Green, where I was born, is divided between Havering and Barking and Dagenham—it is a ludicrous boundary that runs down a road and divides a community. Those areas are all part of Romford, but we stick to these old boundaries from years ago that are no longer relevant. Another example is Chadwell Heath, another part of Romford that is not in my borough but divided between the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Redbridge. I know hon. Members representing constituencies across London can come up with lots of examples of similar situations in which pointless divisions exist. Those should be resolved with local consultation to ensure that boroughs fit local communities and meet the needs of local people.

I believe that restoring local identities as well as renaming boroughs where local people wish to do so should be on the reform agenda. Shepway District Council in Kent was quite sensibly renamed as Folkestone and Hythe District Council, dumping the pointless, artificial name that had no resonance with people. A borough such as Havering—that is the nice name of a small country village in my constituency, but a name that does not represent the communities of that London borough—could be renamed the London Borough of Romford and Hornchurch, which is more representative of the borough’s two major towns. We should have a general review of names that match local towns’ identities to those of local people, so that they can feel pride in their boroughs.

I can talk about other boroughs but I am hesitant to do so because MPs representing those boroughs are not here. The London Borough of Waltham Forest has a completely artificial name—a bit of Walthamstow and a bit of Epping Forest—while the area of Redbridge is actually Ilford, and Hounslow is Chiswick and Brentford. We need to go back to sensible names so that people identify with the communities that they live in. Those 1960s names need to be reviewed and it would be incredibly popular if the Government led a review and gave local people the chance to decide their boundaries and restore traditional names. Who knows, Minister? Perhaps names like Hampstead, Paddington, Stoke Newington, Wembley or Finsbury could be restored. Replacing the names of boroughs that do not resonate with the history and identity of their communities would be extremely popular.

I have floated many new ideas for a reform of London government, some of which I hope hon. Members and the Minister will consider seriously. Whatever our views, let us begin a debate on and work towards the change that will bring about better government across the whole of the London region, the capital of our United Kingdom, and, I believe, the greatest city on earth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to express the Scottish Government’s view on the devolution of powers that are currently held in Holyrood to towns and cities of Scotland. I am sure the people there would like to take control of their lives and have proper devolution from Holyrood to other areas of Scotland—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jake Berry]

Within the context of Greater London, of course.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Please stay within the context of the debate, which is rather narrow.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Minister’s intervention was perhaps tangential, but I do not mind replying to it. Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, but from what I observe, over the last 11 years they have driven the idea of putting power in the hands of local communities, through their work in the highlands and islands of Scotland; through their work to relax controls on local authorities; and, in particular, through their work on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the community land fund, which gives local communities the ability to get together, without reference to their local authority, and take over derelict parts of land or buildings to bring them into community use. There is lots of good stuff going on in Scotland.

I will not prolong matters, because this is not the most subscribed debate that I have taken part in, but let me make three brief observations for the record. The first is that I believe, just as I believe that governance of Scotland should be a matter for the people who live there, that the governance of London should be a matter for those who live there—that principle needs to be established. I remember the dangers of doing things without popular consent. I was a London councillor in Hackney from 1986-1993—I represented the Defoe ward in Stoke Newington—and even then, in the mid-1980s, there was a genuine sense of grievance among many people about the fact that the borough of Stoke Newington had been abolished 20 years before. They identified much more with that area, as the hon. Member for Romford said, than with the new borough council that was created in 1964.

I understand the need for local identity, and I think it is vital that, as the debate continues, attempts are made to engage with the people of London about the various options that are available for the governance of this great city. I know not what the plans of the Mayor, the GLA, or the London boroughs are, but I hope and would welcome any initiatives that look towards engaging the public through a “People’s Assembly” or through a commission that will look at particular structures for the future.

Secondly, we ought to define the principles on which reform should take place as well as the criteria and the objectives that we are trying to achieve. Central to that must be the notion of equality and fairness across this great city. To that end, I think we ought to address the elephant in the room that no one has yet talked about: the City of London Corporation, which operates almost like a reverse-Bantustan in the City and commands a great and disproportionate amount of power and wealth in the capital. Any reform that does not look at how that can be distributed more fairly across the city is probably not worth undertaking.

My final point, which refers to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Romford, is that in these debates—I think that this is true in Scotland, England, and throughout every advanced democracy—it is important to make a distinction between democratic political control by communities and the administration of services. Too often, we get the two confused. That means, for example, that we end up saying, “It’s impossible to run a certain service on too local a level, and therefore we won’t bother letting local people have control of that”, or, “We won’t bother decentralising and setting up structures that allow people to govern a local area, because they cannot control or manage a service on that basis; it’s completely uneconomic.”

In a model whereby an agency provides a service in a public interest framework across a wider area, however—the police are an apt example—but within which local communities and local councils are able to act as the client for that service and to say what they want from the agency, there is a way of giving people democratic control over what is happening in their area without them having to be the managers of the individual service. The same is true for pretty much any major service. In fact, the same is now true for a lot of back-room services, such as information technology or administration, which would probably be much better organised on a larger scale to service a wide range of authorities beneath them that command and direct what needs to be done.

If we do that, we begin to open new possibilities for new, much more localised and decentralised structures that relate to local communities. Such structures would allow people to get much more involved than they are, and at the same time to retain services in a public interest framework and in public ownership. If we were to do that—London might be the place to start—we could play catch-up with much of the rest of Europe, where we can find much more democratic local decision making and, crucially, much greater levels of participation in local affairs and elections than we have in this country. At the end of the day, that is the thing that we all need to address: no matter where we are in the United Kingdom, it is rare for the majority of people to take part in an election for their local council. That is surely something that we need to change.

I am glad that this debate is getting things started—I hope—and next time perhaps we can attract a few more people, in particular Members of Parliament from the capital city, to engage in it. We can take matters forward at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I suppose I ought to intervene, given that I was more or less invited to by that comment. To be absolutely clear—this came from the leadership of the Labour party a couple of years ago, so it is not a new response: we do not support the illegal setting of council budgets. We think councils have been given a rotten settlement, and in many places they struggle to meet their legal obligations.

The question for the Government is how they can provide the resources councils need to be confident that they can set a legal budget that provides security for the people who need it, particularly in adult social care and children’s safeguarding. The failure is not on the part of council leaders. No one proposes setting an illegal budget in any local authority in the country, but there are leaders who say, “We don’t think we can meet our legal obligations if this carries on.” So far, the Government have failed to provide a convincing response.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Now the politics are out of the way, I am sure we will get back to local government reform in Greater London.

[Jake Berry]

Well, of course the GLC was in league, through the Militant movement, with Derek Hatton’s Liverpool Labour party. It is worth focusing on the GLC. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) parades the veneer of a gentle left—of herbivorous, lentil-munching, north London lefties—but the people of Liverpool and those who lived under the GLC know what the hard-left Labour party is really like. Labour councillors went around Liverpool handing out 30,000 redundancy notices to the people who worked in that city. As someone from Liverpool, let me take the opportunity to say that we will never forget that we could not get our bodies buried or our bins emptied. That is what the hard left of Militant and Momentum does to cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me say that I want us to get back to local government reform in London very quickly.

[Jim McMahon]

My response is simple: what on earth does that have to do with local government reorganisation in London? The Minister has an opportunity to lay out something that has been absent during his tenure. What will the Government do to push real power down to local authorities—not just to newly created institutions through deals done behind closed doors? We need a genuine framework that pushes power down to people, communities and neighbourhoods and addresses the issues raised in the debate. That is what we are here to discuss, and we look forward to hearing his reply.