Points of Order

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have not had any indication from the Home Secretary that she is coming here today to make a statement. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the points that she has raised. I know that she will not leave the matter there and will continue to pursue it. Clearly, I cannot comment on any policing decisions and actions, which are not a matter for the Chair.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The list of ministerial responsibilities is the document that Members on both sides of the House and their staff turn to to contact Ministers’ private offices when organising meetings and sending correspondence, so that we can serve and fight for our constituents and communities. However, this list of contacts has not been updated since May. There have been multiple iterations of this Government in that period, but there have actually been some moments when we have had a full set of Ministers in that period. More than a month ago, the Cabinet Office responded to my written question to say that it would be done “in due course”, but that is not an answer. Members are having to guess phone numbers and email addresses for ministerial offices. It is not impossible to do that, but they really should not have to. Can you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to when the list of ministerial responsibilities will be updated so that Members and our staff can get on with the work that we are here to do on behalf of our constituents and our communities?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order and I have much sympathy for it, as I am sure everybody in the Chamber does. I am not responsible for the issues he raises, but again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard them, and I believe it would be useful for all Members if the production of the list happened as speedily as possible.

The reason I was thinking of Layla Moran is that she is not presenting her Bill today—she will do so on another day. I do apologise again, Daisy.

Bill Presented

Plastics (Recycling, Sustainability and Pollution Reduction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Geraint Davies, supported by Rosie Duffield, Tony Lloyd, Caroline Lucas, Tim Farron, John McNally, Rachael Maskell, Dawn Butler, Ian Byrne, Christine Jardine, Beth Winter and Mohammad Yasin, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for promoting a circular economy in respect of plastics, including setting targets and measures for the elimination and recycling of single-use plastics; to require the Secretary of State to establish a taskforce to develop proposals to encourage the use of reuse and refill models of packaging; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of the strategy; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that UK targets for the elimination and recycling of plastic packaging are more demanding than equivalent targets set by the European Union; to require manufacturers and retailers to pay for the cost of recycling plastic; to require the Government to set annual targets for reducing the quantity of plastic waste that is incinerated; to require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for banning the export of plastic waste by 2027; to make provision for the purpose of reducing the cost of recycling plastic, including measures to encourage the standardisation of plastic packaging; to give powers to the Office for Environmental Protection to enforce legislation relating to plastic pollution; to make provision for the purpose of encouraging the development of sustainable alternatives to plastic packaging; to require the Government to publish a plan for the use of fiscal policy to incentivise investment in recycling infrastructure and sustainable behaviour by consumers and retailers in relation to plastic; to require the Government to publish a plan for agreeing a global treaty on plastic pollution reduction; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 186).

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The housing crisis in this country is huge, and it is more than just an issue of supply. In my community, as I mentioned in the previous debate, a catastrophe has emerged over the past two years. I have never seen such appalling need. The average house price in my constituency is something like 12 times the average household income. The simple fact is that any benefit from this Bill will help, if we are lucky, a fraction of 1% of people who want to buy a house but are currently unable to do so.

This Bill is not a very good use of public money when we are in the throes of a Conservative Government heroically seeking to do their best to counter the impact of a Conservative Budget. This Bill is a surviving element of that disastrous Budget. It does not seem to be the best use of money, given that the majority of beneficiaries will be wealthy people who do not need a stamp duty cut. What it will do, as we said in the previous debate, is fuel a second home boom that is already causing a huge amount of damage to communities like mine.

I asked myself why this Bill is one of the few survivors of the disastrous mini-Budget. I can only conclude that it is because the people who are damaged and offended by it live in rural communities, so the Government feel that they can take them for granted. I put it on the record that these people will not be taken for granted. Again, the average house price in my community is spiralling towards £300,000, but people’s incomes are significantly less than £30,000 per household, never mind per individual. When there are things the Government could do to address the affordable housing crisis, it is all the more frustrating to see such a blunderbuss waste of public money.

The Government are talking about changing planning law so that developers do not need to provide affordable housing in developments smaller than 50 homes. Well, most developments in communities such as mine are smaller than 50 homes, so there will be a carte blanche for developers never to build another affordable home in the lakes and the dales, or in communities not dissimilar to yours, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I gave the Government an opportunity in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, which they refused to take, to give themselves and planning authorities the power, in extreme circumstances—those of us living in national parks absolutely are in extreme circumstances—to say that only affordable housing can be built in new developments. Even under existing rules, developers wriggle out of their affordability requirements and obligations by using viability assessments. They go to the development site and say, “I found a few more rocks than I was expecting. I therefore cannot afford even the 35% affordable homes that we were going to build.” Again “affordable” has a rather broad definition.

The Government could be doing a whole range of things with both new stock and existing stock. Why will they not accept the proposal I made in this place and in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and will be making again, to change planning law so that second homes and holiday lets become separate categories of planning use? We could then keep a lid on the number of second homes and holiday lets in communities like mine.

It is very hard to support a proposal that is the sole straggling survivor of a disastrous mini-Budget when one suspects that the only reason it has survived is because the people hurt by it are living in communities that the Government think they can take for granted. Well, they cannot and must not be allowed to take them for granted. I am sure we will see a revised fiscal programme from the Government in the next few days, so we wait to see what it contains. I do not understand why they are clinging on to this proposal, which will do such little good even for those it helps and such harm to those it harms, when they have the chance to think again. I strongly urge them to do just that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister, Tulip Siddiq.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is deeply offensive. One reason why the story has not gone away is that some of the defences are even more offensive. Some Government Members—a minority, I will absolutely state—have said that teachers were up to it, nurses were up to it, and that everybody broke the rules. I did not, I am pretty sure that most people in the Chamber did not, I know that most of my constituents did not and I know that those in the caring professions, in particular, absolutely did not. In one sense, they did it gladly because we were loving our neighbour and doing the right thing by protecting people, not because of slavish obedience to authoritarianism. I am a liberal; I do not like these laws or rules, but I knew that they were necessary to protect lives. So did the Prime Minister, yet he broke them.

As I think we have a little bit of time—I will not go on for long, I promise—I want to address the issues of forgiveness that have been discussed. As a Christian, I want to reflect on those. I was deeply affected by the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and by the comments of some other Members, about the extent to which we should be seeking to forgive the Prime Minister.

I do not know how contrite the Prime Minister is. I do not know how sincere his repentance, or his apology. Only two beings know the answer to that question, and I will not make any assumption that I know it, because I am definitely not one of them. I will say this, however. I believe—and this is one of the most radical and offensive things about Christianity—that forgiveness is available for everything and for everyone. However, even forgiven sins bear consequences. My reading from The Bible last night was Luke 6:27—“Love your enemies.” I am careful not to think of Members on the other side of the House, or members of any other party, as enemies. They are sometimes a colleague and sometimes an opponent, but they are not my enemy. There are times, though, when you disagree with someone so very much—as I do with the Prime Minister on so many issues—that you can, in your mind, make them an enemy, and I need to repent of that. Am I bitter, and seeking my vengeance on the Prime Minister? No, and it would be wrong if I did.

What I think we need to remember is this: in forgiving somebody, we must not let them stain the reputation of this place and of our politics. To say sorry is one thing, but we should remember the story of Zacchaeus. As Jesus comes into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, Zacchaeus, a tax collector who has ripped off his kith and kin for many years and is a great sinner, repents—great—but then he also makes recompense. He does more than just say sorry; he gives back four times what he has taken.

I think we need to remember that accepting an apology does not mean that there is not a consequence. The Prime Minister has not borne the consequence. What does not bearing that consequence mean? It sets the bar for what is acceptable in our public life at a subterranean level. What a shocking example this is for all of us here, for all those who might follow us, and for everyone else in the country. It tells us that it is possible to do things that are not honest, and to set rules for others and choose not to follow them, because you are somehow better than the people whom you lead. That is not acceptable, and it is not right.

What is also not right is to hide behind the suffering of the people in Ukraine as an excuse not to take action now. It is fundamentally weak for some Conservative Members to say that we must wait until some indeterminate time when that suffering might be over to take the action that needs to be taken. The simple fact is that Ukraine is a reason why the Prime Minister should go, and should go now, because we are in a state of paralysis. We know that every decision he takes is coloured by his desire to survive, and affects our own position as a country. We are diverted by this ongoing soap opera, this saga, this sorry state of affairs.

The sad conclusion I have reached is that we now have a Conservative party that is too ashamed of the Prime Minister to defend him, but too weak to remove him. Today is the day when the Conservatives need to discover their backbone.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am about to call the last Back Bencher to contribute before the winding-up speeches, so I suggest that any Members of Parliament who are in their offices should make their way to the Chamber now. I call Florence Eshalomi.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. No Minister came to this House today to address the appalling situation for the 155,000 people across the United Kingdom who remain without electricity, following damage caused by Storm Arwen. Thousands of people in Cumbria—in Coniston, Haverthwaite, Torver, Hawkshead, Grayrigg, Shap, Alston, Troutbeck, Garsdale, parts of Windermere, parts of Kirkby Stephen and parts of the Cartmel peninsula—are now facing their fourth night without electricity.

We need support tonight to help the hard work and increase the numbers of the engineers who are working around the clock to fix the connections. That may well involve bringing in the Army. We also need support for the amazing community volunteers who are helping vulnerable people and families who are cold, hungry and suffering in other ways. After four nights without power, most people become vulnerable. Could you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, how we can make representations to Ministers so that we can see immediate action tonight?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He mentions a number of areas in and around his constituency; areas in my constituency and those of others have also been affected.

I have been given no indication that there is to be a statement today on the matter, but you are a seasoned Member of Parliament, Mr Farron, and you will know that there are other devices that you may be able to use to raise the issue, either directly with Ministers or in the House. Also, the Table Office is always there to assist Members in pursuing the interests that they have.

I thank the hon. Member for raising that vital issue.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill (Ways and Means)

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act arising from the Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Kit Malthouse.)

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is another great advantage of speaking at this late stage of the debate, which is that I have been able to hear the contributions from Members from all parts of the House. Those contributions have been thoughtful, genuinely interesting and well delivered. I am sure that Members will forgive me if I also say that there has been a fair amount of buzzword bingo. Sadly, while there was certainly a degree of buzzword bingo in the Budget statement last week, the numbers for rural Britain did not come up. If we are talking about levelling up, which is the theme of this debate, the Government should look at those parts of the country that are suffering with peculiar problems and unique difficulties and seek to address them. However, that has definitely not been the case when it comes to rural Britain. I am a fellow Yorkshire dales MP with the Chancellor, and he has no excuse for being ignorant of some of the issues that I am going to raise, which must raise the question of how much he actually cares about rural Britain.

There are huge issues facing rural Britain at the moment, and I am going to pick just a few that the Government had the opportunity to deal with but chose not to. The first is the housing crisis. “Crisis” is an overused word, but in rural Britain, and particularly in Cumbria, the crisis of the past 18 months has become extreme and acute. What do I mean by that? Throughout Cumbria, we have communities that have a minimum of 50% second homes. In some cases, 80% to 90% of the houses in a particular village or town are not lived in. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what that can mean for a community, because you know very well that it can mean the loss of life for a community. Communities can lose their schools, their bus services and their very communities.

During the covid crisis, up to 80% of all house sales in Cumbria have been on the second home market, so a terrible problem has become disastrously worse in no time. Let us remember that the south lakes are Britain’s biggest tourist destination outside London, and we already have tons of holiday lets. In my community of South Lakeland, in one single year during the pandemic, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. Where from? I will tell you where from: hard-working local people in private lets who have been kicked out since the eviction ban. Their homes are now being handed over to Airbnb. The Chancellor had an opportunity to raise taxes in the Budget. We are criticised on the side of the House for not saying what we would do. I believe that we should double council tax for second homeowners to ensure that there is money to invest in those communities and to provide a disincentive to people wanting to buy too many second homes in those communities. We also need to change the planning laws so that holiday lets and second homes have different categories of planning use, so that local communities in the dales, the lakes and elsewhere in Cumbria can have control over their housing stock.

The consequence of this absolute catastrophe in our housing stock is local families being forced out of the area. The lakeland clearances are happening in our communities right now in this day and age, and that is having an impact on our employers in hospitality and tourism. Some 80% of the local working-age population in the Lake district work in hospitality and tourism, so the Government’s incredibly foolish, cloth-eared policies on visas mean that we are killing the tourism industry not just in the Lake district and the dales but elsewhere. Action could have been taken to prevent this.

I want to talk briefly about health and the hospital improvement programme. The Government are currently putting on the table a proposal that would close Lancaster Hospital and Preston Hospital and merge them somewhere in the middle. For people in the lakes and the dales, that will mean travelling twice as much as they currently do to reach an A&E department that is already too far away. There was an opportunity in the Budget to give money to radiotherapy satellite centres right around the country, and the Chancellor could have awarded one to Kendal, as has been proposed many times in the past. Some people have to make a four-hour return journey for their daily cancer treatment at our nearest centre in Preston. That could have been addressed, but it was not.

When it comes to dentistry, I have had constituents just in the past week being told that their nearest NHS dentist is in Doncaster, Manchester or Newcastle. These are issues that could have been focused on if the Government cared about levelling up rural Britain as well as the areas that have been mentioned.

Last but definitely not least, what about farming, the backbone of our rural communities? As the Government botch the transition from basic payments to the new environmental land management schemes system, we see farmers expected to live on half their income within three years, clearing those people from the landscape too and undermining rural Britain. I wish the Chancellor cared; he has no excuse whatsoever, given that he surely knows.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Bell, we will not put the timer on you; just resume your seat no later than 9.30 pm.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sit down no later than 2.30 pm, Mr Tim Farron.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The Government’s position throughout this Bill, as it is on every other piece of legislation, is directed at an audience. The audience that was listening to their intentions to break international law was an international audience. While of course it is welcome that those clauses have been withdrawn, it is ludicrous that they were ever on the table in the first place. International opinion of the United Kingdom has been measurably affected by that as a consequence.

The fact that Britain is a country that is prepared to break its word and break international law so flagrantly—for whatever purpose Government Members might think they have behind that—is heard, noticed and remembered. As a consequence, Britain’s standing in the world is reduced, Britain’s influence in the world is reduced and Britain’s sovereignty is reduced. That is why the sovereignty myth being peddled by the Government at the moment is so far off the mark of reality.

I will focus my comments in the moments ahead of me on the issues to do with mutual recognition and the differences between the four nations of the United Kingdom. Mutual recognition is embedded in this Bill and we seek to remove it, because it is about setting the United Kingdom’s formal negotiating position using the standards that are the lowest among the four nations. As we go and have a negotiation on food, farming and other trade issues with other countries, we will use the standards of whichever of the four nations has the lowest as the common standard across the United Kingdom.

That is appalling for two reasons. It is a race to the bottom when it comes to standards in agriculture and in other matters as well, and it is a threat to the integrity and the survival of the United Kingdom. Both those realities hurt my communities in Cumbria, first because of the impact on farming. The fact that the British Government continue to refuse to write into legislation minimum standards—particularly on animal welfare and environmental standards—leaves our farmers open to being undercut by cheap imports from other countries; people talk in particular about the United States, but there are other deals as well.

That is hugely damaging to our proud record of high-quality animal welfare and environmental standards and ethics in this country. Alongside that, the Government’s decision in 28 days or so to start removing a vast chunk of farm incomes in England through the basic payment scheme undermines family farming in this country to the extent that it will reduce our capacity to feed ourselves and fundamentally change the landscape of places such as the Lake District. That is wrong, and we need to ensure that those standards—our proud, high British agricultural standards—are written into statute.

However, from my perspective and that of most people here, it is also massively regrettable in how it undermines the integrity of the United Kingdom. In Cumbria, we share a border with Scotland. Animals raised in Dumfriesshire are sold at market in Cumbria, and animals raised in Cumbria are sold at market in Dumfriesshire. The border is pretty meaningless to most of us on either side of it. To undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom in this way, and to play into the hands of those who would want the United Kingdom to be split up, is utter folly from the Government. Some 95% of Cumbrian farm exports are to the single market, but the single market that matters most to us is the United Kingdom single market. My great fear is that Conservative Members increasingly know little, and care less, about what it would take to keep the United Kingdom together.

I run the risk of offending some people around me, but I say this to the English nationalists on the Government Benches whose modus operandi to win the elections of the past few years has been to blame all the ills of the country on people outside our borders: that has done you a lot of good in terms of electoral results in recent years, but it can happen to you in reverse, as nationalists north of the border point to the nationalists on your Front Bench and decide to make a call that it is time to end the Union. That is why we need to uphold the Lords amendments: because we believe in the future of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A few references to “you” there, Mr Farron—you should know better.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Tim Farron, I would like to say that at 6.27 pm and no later, the Minister will be up on his feet. You know that Jim Shannon is on the list and it would be nice if you could at least ensure that he is able to make a contribution.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow so many well-informed, logical and compassionate speeches in this important debate. In the Home Secretary’s party conference speech a few weeks ago, she talked about the vast importance of refugees using legal routes to come to the UK. I think all hon. Members present agree and all—or most—are bemused as to why she would close off a route such as this, which is relatively modest, as has been said.

The ire that is focused on criminal gangs is absolutely justified, but we push people into the arms of those criminal gangs if we close off safe and legal routes. Wherever the negotiations with the EU end up, the chances are that we will need to bring in our own domestic policy that offers young people and families the opportunity to be reunited on these shores.

I will make four quick points. First, the numbers are few. The reaction of some newspapers, and from the mouths of some Ministers and others, is a colossal overreaction to the numbers of people actually travelling. Yes, it is more than we would want—it is a sign of something utterly heartbreaking—but we are not talking about the tens or hundreds of thousands that some of us have seen in south-eastern Europe over the last few years. The numbers are few, so let us not overreact with the sabre-rattling rhetoric that we sometimes hear from the Government and the Conservative party.

Secondly, the stakes are high, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) encapsulated. I remember being on the shores of Lesbos a few years ago as a boat came in, and talking to a family afterwards—a five-year-old girl, three-year-old girl, mum and dad. The dad ran a garage in Syria and the mum was a nursery schoolteacher. They were relatively comfortable, but they took a colossal and unspeakable risk, because staying was more risky. The stakes are high, so how dare we put barriers in their way?

Thirdly, the objections are poor. I often hear people talk about the pull factor, but there is a push factor, for pity’s sake. Those people will try to find a way to our shores by a safe and legal way, or by utterly brutal and dangerous ways, unless we provide those safe routes.

Finally, this is not worthy of us. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) rightly talked about our national character. I think it was a couple of days ago that Sir Ben Helfgott was honoured in the Pride of Britain awards. I am massively proud of Ben Helfgott because he is one of the 300 Windermere boys. There were 300 young people—mostly children—rescued from the death camps after the end of the second world war who came here and were resettled literally on the shores of Lake Windermere. They were accepted, brought back into some kind of civilised existence and set on their way, and they achieved wonderful things like Ben did. That is the Britain that I know and love. Accepting refugees from Uganda, from Kosovo—that is what makes Britain Britain. It is just beneath us to be finding reasons and excuses not to say yes to the entirely reasonable Lords amendment that provides a safe and legal route for family reunion, and prevents people from being pushed into the arms of dangerous criminal gangs.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Tim Farron and Nigel Evans

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In the Secretary of State’s statement, he spoke with pride about the Prime Minister’s announcement on Friday of the additional capital programme for hospitals. In Cumbria, we met that announcement with some dismay. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, there is a proposal to close the Preston and Lancaster hospitals and merge them into a single hospital somewhere in between. Does the Secretary of State realise that that will mean even longer journeys for acute care for people from the South Lakes? Will he have a word with the Prime Minister, and drop that dangerous proposal from the consultation, so that people in south Cumbria do not have to make dangerous journeys for emergency care?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That was only touched on briefly in the statement, which was a covid update. It would have been really nice if the hon. Member could have asked his question in relation to the covid update, which is what the statement was mainly about.