Planning Committees: Reform

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. To return to an earlier question, there are a small number of people out there who are out-and-out nimbys—as we might put it—who will resist development of any kind in their area. There is a much wider group of people in our communities across the country who want to see better, infrastructure-led development. That is something we are taking forward, not least through changes consulted on in the NPPF, but we know there is more work to do in this area. I would be more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more we can do.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is not local planning authorities that stop house building, but land supplies and land banking, as we have already heard this afternoon. In Bath and north-east Somerset alone, something like 2,000 homes have received planning permission but have not been built yet. Should the Government not concentrate on land banking rather than threatening to destroy a vital part of local democracy, and why is land banking not part of the Minister’s consultation paper?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is not either/or. We have to have more permissions going into the system and more timely planning decisions made in accordance with material planning considerations and in a consistent way, not relitigating or revisiting decisions that have been made in outline. However, we also absolutely have to take action on land supply and build-out, and I have made clear in answer to previous questions that we are giving the matter further thought.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Like Members across the House, Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved and their immediate community of family, friends and neighbours as they mourn the 72, including children, who tragically lost their lives in June 2017. In this debate, surely one thing matters more than anything: that their memory must be respected. But, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 report on the underlying cause of the fire graphically lays bare, they were cruelly let down by the systems, companies, Governments and government bodies that should have protected them.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to address all the recommendations in the report, and the Prime Minister’s promise in response to the phase 2 report to take the necessary steps to speed up the rate at which unsafe cladding is removed from buildings and to ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. However, the National Audit Office has said that the pace of remediation work is behind where it should be and called for the onus to be placed on developers to pay for the work. Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s figures show that works have begun in 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding, it is deeply worrying, seven years on, that 66% are waiting and that thousands of people in the UK are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcements about accelerating progress.

As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, 90% of Government funding for the work so far has been received by private building owners, but many have passed the costs of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, putting many, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. Leaseholders have struggled under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering from huge increases in insurance premiums, as we have heard. We therefore call for the removal of all such dangerous cladding as soon as possible without tenants and leaseholders—including non-qualifying leaseholders —having to pay. After all, they placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down, so they should not have to pay a penny towards that work. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, product manufacturers surely should be paying.

The whole picture points to the need to create a legally enforceable order to remediate premises so that they are safe on pain of criminal sanction. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister said about that a few moments ago. Seven years on from this scandal, it is time for justice both for the victims and all those living with potentially unsafe cladding.

The inquiry report clearly establishes lessons to be learned for every authority in the land. The “pathway to disaster”, as Sir Martin called it, is chilling. It is incumbent on all of us in the House and everyone connected with the built environment and fire safety, not least those in my own professions—as an architect and town planner, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to ensure that change happens and to take forward the report’s recommendations. The Architects Registration Board, working with the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to monitor the training and development that architects complete throughout their careers. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this year it is mandatory for all architects to complete training in fire safety.

But there is one factor that comes through in the fateful chain of events that led to the fire in 2017, and it is one that had a devastating effect on the lives of so many: the promotion of gaining commercial advantage at the expense of building and fire safety. The inquiry said that the Building Research Establishment—originally a public body but privatised in the ’90s—exhibited in its testing of dangerous cladding

“a desire to accommodate existing customers and to retain its status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.”

The inquiry reports says that the supplier companies

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment…was complicit in that strategy.”

Since the privatisation of building inspectors in the 1980s—a move with which even the most commercially minded partners at the practice I worked in a few years later strongly disagreed—they have also faltered as a result of commercial pressures, with a resultant unacceptable blurring of responsibilities. Sir Martin’s report concludes that the privatised inspector NHBC

“failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its…customers”.

The report goes on:

“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”

It is also clear that NHBC practices exposed what remains of local authority building control to similarly unscrupulous competition, and has driven down standards there as a result.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. Does he agree that a lot of problems have arisen from the poor funding of local authorities, where building control services have been severely undermined?

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree. It is clear from my time in the profession that the exposure of local authority building control to private competition, with which it is difficult to compete, has led to a race to the bottom. In fact, hon. Members should not take my word for it; expert witness Professor Luke Bisby summed it up:

“A culture shift in building control had gradually occurred, from one of building control actors ‘policing’ developers to one of them ‘working with clients’ under commercial duress. This resulted in a ‘race to the bottom’”.

Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support the recommendation for the Government to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. We would go further and say that the evidence to the inquiry is such that commercial interests cannot be in the public interest, and that both the Building Research Establishment and building inspectors should be brought back under public control. We also urge social housing providers to pay particular attention to their new requirements under the Social Housing Act (Regulation) 2023, and to the need for better inspection and timely remediation of defects.

We also strongly endorse the need for a recognised profession of fire engineer. It is important, too, that our local fire services are properly funded. I was concerned about the reduction in the number of appliances at Taunton fire station, and I have written to the Treasury on behalf of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority, asking the Government for flexibility in funding and tax-raising powers. It is vital that no further reduction of appliances at stations such as mine go ahead.

We support all 58 recommendations in the report, whether for local authorities, the fire brigade, tenant management organisations or local authorities, or on personal emergency evacuation plans being put in place —it is good to see the Government establishing that today—or indeed for the Government themselves. Since what has turned out to be the fatal folly of promoting commercial interest above building and fire safety in the decades from the ’80s and ’90s, Governments of all persuasions have let down some of our most vulnerable citizens. The situation has been reviewed many times over the years by Governments of all stripes. It is now time to put safety once again before profit.

Employment Rights Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Will the hon. Member listen to my response? I gave way to him. For 14 years, the Tories promised employment Bills and an industrial strategy, and in 14 years they delivered the highest cost of living for the working people of this country. It will be this Labour Government who deliver for them.

This is a Government back in the service of working people, building an economy fit for the future and making work pay. For the first time ever, we have instructed the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living when setting the minimum wage, because everyone deserves a proper living wage for a proper day’s work. We have already moved to protect 4 million self-employed workers from late payments with the new fair payment code, and we have already encouraged employers not to use the ineffective and failed minimum service laws, which did not stop a single day of industrial action while in force, before we repeal them for good. That is a bold start, but we are going further. The UK labour market is not delivering for workers or businesses, and it holds back the UK economy. We know that things have to change. The Bill marks a momentous opportunity to chart a new route to growth—one built from the bottom up and the middle out—alongside the £63 billion of investment into the UK that was announced last week. Higher growth, higher wages and higher productivity—a new partnership between workers and business.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

You are correct: it is not a point of order, even if the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Sexual harassment in the workplace is absolutely horrendous and has been terrible in demotivating people from staying in their workplaces. Following my Worker Protection Act 2024 becoming law, the Government proposals go even further on third-party harassment in the workplace. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Bill will encourage people by making our workplaces safer?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her work in that area. We must ensure that workplaces have a good culture that does not tolerate any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, because that is bad for business as well.

The major achievement of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will be to strengthen rights for working people. That is personal for me: I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there would be a pay cheque next month. The fear of not being able to provide for my young family, and of losing everything, stuck with me. Now that I am at the Cabinet table, I am determined to deliver for the millions of people in the position that I was once in, and to bring all companies up to the standard of the best when it comes to workers’ rights. The Bill is a recognition and celebration of the many employers that are already implementing such measures and, in many cases, go much further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the last two speakers on their powerful maiden speeches. Both of them were most moving. As we always discover in this place, there is more that unites us than divides us. What unites me with the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) is clearly Jane Austen. I say to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) that I lived in east Lancashire for 15 years, and I know the area well. I was sorry to hear about the loss for her family.

I am pleased that many of the measures that we Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for over many years have been included in this Bill. I am most pleased about the reinstatement, in clauses 15 and 16, of the original wording of my Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023. Introduced as a private Member’s Bill, my Act amended the Equality Act 2010 to better protect employees from workplace harassment and sexual harassment. In addition to creating a direct preventive duty, it would have created new liabilities for employers in cases of third-party harassment, unless employers took all reasonable steps to prevent it. That would have created protections similar to those that were originally in the Equality Act 2010, but were removed by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Amendments to my Bill in Committee in the Lords removed that clause, so that no such liability was created. The ridiculous argument was made that it would have prevented free speech. It therefore remains the case that employers have no liability for harassment of staff by third parties. My original Bill would also have created a new legal duty for employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. As a result of amendments made by the Lords, that was reduced to “reasonable steps”.

Since my Bill passed into law, excellent progress has been made. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses felt that the prevention of sexual harassment is of high importance. However, according to WorkNest, three quarters of employers cited protection from harassment by third parties as a concern. There is clearly an appetite among businesses for including these protections in the Bill. Too many people suffer still from sexual harassment in the workplace. I congratulate the Government on taking further steps to remove that blight on our workplaces.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Wera Hobhouse.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I wish to speak only on Third Reading.

[The Chairman]

Certainly—I was calling the hon. Lady because she is the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches who had indicated she wished to speak, but there is no need for her to contribute at this stage. We will save her contribution for Third Reading and continue with the Committee stage, with the Chair of the Committee that has examined this Bill, John Stevenson.

--- Later in debate ---

The Chief Rabbi, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Holocaust Educational Trust, whose very job it is to educate the younger generations about the Holocaust, all support this project. That, I think, is telling.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Sir Michael Ellis]

Forgive me.

The Jewish people in this country are a very small minority. There are many constituencies where there will be no Jews at all—literally none—and many others where there will perhaps be only a dozen or two. Jews represent only 0.3% of the population of this country, at around 250,000 people in a population of 70 million. In a world of 7 billion people, there are only 17 million Jews—a small but strong.

Jews love life and they seek peace. They are not an homogenous group; they do not all speak as one. One need only look at Israeli democratic politics for five minutes to see the divisions within Israeli society. They are not all going to agree about everything, just as all black people do not, or all redheaded people. They are not an homogenous group, but they love this country, they are respectful to it and grateful for it, and many seek to serve it, as I have tried to do, and I hope that long continues.

I say to those Jewish people who may be listening, “Look not to the noisy wasps to which I have alluded, but instead to a Prime Minister whose moral stance has been clear.” The Prime Minister is a great hero to the British Jewish community, and not because there are many votes in it—there are not, for the reasons I have just given—but because it is morally the right thing to do. The same is true of our royal family. For example, the Prince of Wales recently visited a synagogue and spoke with an elderly Holocaust survivor, which is testament to the support of the monarchy, and I dare say would have made the late Queen proud.

We need this memorial. Jews are not cowering with trembling knees, although maybe that happened in previous generations. They stand in the face of adversity, knowing that in this country there are many more of the Christian faith, the Hindu faith, the Sikh faith, the Buddhist faith and the Muslim faith who will stand with us and protect us, and who will stop those who seek to harm and intimidate the Jewish community. We need a memorial to remind people of that. It needs to be in this location because of its paramount and historic importance, and to remind people why, indeed, the state of Israel has to exist.

To those who have an unnatural and unforgiving animus towards the Jews and who disguise it as hatred towards Israel and in other ways, I say that they are just twigs cracking in an empty forest, or birds chirping on a desert island, because their voices will be weak and ineffectual if those of us in this House speak as one. Those tiny voices and cracking noises in the wilderness will be drowned out in a crowd of millions. This memorial is needed and must continue.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of this Bill and against the amendments, however nobly argued and well intentioned they are. I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that this has been a long time in the making and further prevarication will simply mean that the objective of establishing a memorial gets pushed out further and further, which is not a good reflection on this Government’s determination to see it come about.

I speak as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I was very pleased that we had the opportunity to have a debate in Government time during War Graves Week last week. As was made clear by Members right across the House through every contribution, the commission does a magnificent job of maintaining memorials to the fallen in many countries around the world. Many of those are very substantial structures that were built in the immediate aftermath of the first world war primarily, with some following the second world war. I think I am right in saying that the time it took to construct each of those memorials is less than the time it has taken us to get this memorial legislation through the House. That is shocking, frankly, and we need to put it right.

I have visited many of the Commonwealth war grave memorials and, like other Members, I have also visited some of the Holocaust memorials, notably in Berlin. So I am aware of the pressure of visitor numbers for people who live in major cities where the Holocaust is commemorated or where there are memorials to the fallen. Those places become significant tourist attractions for visitors who wish to pay their respects and to recognise the suffering and the sacrifices that have been made. I therefore understand the pressure that this proposal will place at the heart of our city, adjacent to Parliament. But it is right that any memorial should be in a prominent location that is easy to access and at the heart of the nation, so that it can have the kind of impact we wish to see.

If you will allow me, Mr Evans, I will stray just a little off the immediate point of the amendments to read briefly from an article that I wrote nine and a half years ago, in January 2015, in the week after the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, with cross-party support, accepted the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission to build a national memorial with a world-class learning centre and an endowment fund to secure Holocaust education forever.

What I wrote then remains valid today, and it is the reason I am taking this stance. Each year, many Members of this House across all parties sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment to mark international Holocaust Memorial Day. The book honours those who died during the Holocaust, as well as those extraordinary survivors, of whom there are very few left today, who have devoted their lives since their experiences through the Holocaust to educate younger generations about what they endured.

This year, Holocaust Memorial Day took place on the 79th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. In that article, I wrote:

“As the deadliest concentration camp under the Third Reich, the name Auschwitz is synonymous with the Holocaust. One in six Jews who died were killed at the camp, approximately one million people. But even for those who survived, the scars of their incarceration, both physical and mental, would remain for the rest of their lives. Few who did survive are still with us, but their stories are as important now as ever.

A few years ago I visited Auschwitz with students from Bridgnorth, and it is an experience that will remain with me for the rest of my life. The site is a haunting remnant of a regime’s attempt to wipe an entire people from the face of the earth. The sheer number of those who lost their lives in concentration camps across Europe is almost incomprehensible. But the large piles of personal effects, like spectacles or shoes, taken from those walking to their deaths really brought home to me just how many were killed. The collection of children’s toys was particularly heartrending.

That man is capable of such inhumanity, based on an adherence to a doctrine of hate, is a chilling thought. But to shy away from retelling one of the darkest periods of human history would be an injustice to those who lost their lives. Instead, it is essential we continue to educate the next generation so they are aware of what happened under the Nazi regime, and develop a more tolerant society free from racism, prejudice and bigotry.”

The need for such a memorial in the UK is no less now, as we see increased reports of antisemitism, for reasons that we can all understand.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Philip Dunne]

I am afraid I will not give way, because I have already extended the patience of the Chairman.

I will conclude by saying that we have to stop prevaricating and get on with construction. I support the Bill and will not support the amendments to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I begin by thanking you and your fellow Deputy Speakers for chairing proceedings in Committee so expeditiously? I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, who took part in the debate, which was informed, sensible, probing and proper.

I thank the officials, who have worked diligently and with the efficiency and professionalism that anybody who has been a Minister now comes to expect, almost as a matter of course, from our wonderful civil service. I thank Paul Downie, Helen Jones, Ruby Hatton, Emma Morrison and Sally Sealey for all that they have done during the progress of the Bill. I particularly want to thank my private secretary, James Selby, for all that he has done to ensure that everything was in order.

It would be remiss of me not to thank Ed Balls and my noble Friend Lord Pickles for all that they have done to progress this idea. I also thank those hon. Members who so willingly and diligently gave of their time on the Bill Select Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who chaired it with his customary wit and professionalism, the hon. Members for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici). The House owes them all a debt of gratitude, as do the Government, and I repay that debt wholeheartedly and fully now.

I also thank those who gave of their time in preparing their case. Those opposed to the proposal, either in whole or in part, gave of their time to appear before the Committee, and in so doing they exercised the right to be heard without fear or favour and to be cross-examined fairly by elected democrats in this place. That is actually what all of this is about: the triumph of good over evil; of light over darkness.

The challenge, real as it was, that the cloud of Nazism cast over the continent of Europe, and that the horror the Nazis unleashed against people merely because of their faith and belief, came so close to extinguishing those precious lights of religious freedom and democratic institutions, as well as freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of thought.

The Holocaust memorial will stand as a testimony to that; a visible beacon to specific visitors as well as to casual passers-by. It will provide a time to pause and reflect, and to redouble our efforts and make again the solemn and precious vow: “Never again.”

Those who make a visit to the education centre—hopefully many of our young, but not exclusively our young—will come away with a renewed determination to learn from the horrors of the past, to understand in some clearer detail the depths that humankind can plummet against members of its own species, to make again that eternal vow of never again, and to learn from the mistakes of the past. The synergy of the education centre and the memorial, juxtaposed to each other and adjacent to this sovereign democratic Parliament, is so important, as is the setting in a busy part of the city of Westminster, with bustling traffic, pedestrians and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and others said in Committee, families and children enjoying the open space provided in central London that is Victoria Tower Gardens.

What could be more uplifting than the laughter of children at play? What could be a happier sight than families enjoying leisure time together? We will reflect, when we think of those scenes, of the families ripped apart by the Holocaust, of the children torn from their parents, and the husbands separated from wives, to go into a cattle truck of darkness, not knowing where one was going, why one was going or what in the name of all that is holy was happening, merely because of a sign of faith and a belief in Yahweh. I hope that all those who visit will, as they see children at play and happy families, think of how many families were destroyed.

The imperative to deliver this memorial remains ever pressing. Those who either were part of the Kindertransport —I think of Lord Dubs and others—or are of the generation who have contemporary memory, even from a very young age, are ageing and dying. It is so important, even with a small and dwindling cohort of the real-time survivors, that they can draw spiritual comfort from the fact that we do not forget, that we do remember and that we do recommit not to repeat.

I am grateful and the Government are grateful to the Opposition for their support during the Bill’s progress. The commitment was first made by the then Prime Minister, my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton way back in January 2015. The Bill has ebbed and flowed, but throughout those ebbs and flows, it has continued to enjoy cross-party support and support from the range of political parties of this place and elsewhere, different parts of civic society and a huge variety of our faith communities.

We acknowledge the concerns of those who think there is a better site and those who are concerned about the size of Victoria Tower Gardens, the impact the development may have on its character, or the precedent the Bill may create. I hope that I addressed those points as best I could in Committee, cognisant of the fact, which it is probably worthy of reminding ourselves of and which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) alluded to in his kind and supportive remarks towards the end of Committee, that while many of the concerns were totally legitimate, they were germane to the planning process, not the progress of the Bill.

I hope the House knows me well enough to take as gospel when I say that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and I have meticulously safeguarded clear lines of demarcation between progressing this Bill through the House of Commons and issues related to planning. I can say, hand on heart, that my hon. Friend and I have not exchanged a single word about the Bill, the site or the proposal. It is important to stress on Third Reading that we have clearly understood and respected throughout probity, understanding the difference in the various powers and the quasi-judicial function that sits behind the planning process.

As this is a hybrid Bill, the Select Committee heard from petitioners against the Bill and raised questions in its report about how Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen. We have discussed the cost of the project, and we take seriously the security implications. I thank the Committee for its report, and I hope that it welcomed my response, which was published recently. The security of our fellow citizens is one of our clear and primary duties. I have no doubt that there will be challenges in that arena, and dynamic solutions will be needed.

For absolute certainty, I echo the point made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy): the day must not come when the decisions of where and how we site our memorials is dictated to, the whip hand is given and the fiat is acknowledged from a group of unaccountable people who believe that those who shout loudest, waive the most banners, cause the most disruption and generate the most vandalism will prevail, because the state has neither the nerve nor the spine to stand up to them to say what we think is right, that we cherish it and that we will support it with all that we can. I make that commitment to the House and to the country today.

We will not be, nor should we be, dictated to by those who are fundamentally anti-democratic, who will not take no for an answer and will accept only victory and never defeat. We say to them, “Not here, not now, not ever.” To give ground on that would fundamentally change this place and our democratic functions. As we approach that most important of democratic functions on 4 July, it is a time for all of us who honourably wear the badge of democrats to stand up for our shared values, irrespective of political difference. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Lady for Bath wishes to intervene.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I would like to make a speech.

[Simon Hoare]

In that case, I will not let the hon. Lady intervene. [Interruption.] Who was that? My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) chunters from the Back Benches up until the end.

I think that we have lost sight of the fact that the proposals were considered at a detailed and independent planning inquiry. Set against the thorough work of the Committee and the time that has elapsed since 2015 when the proposal was first given voice, that fundamentally undermines the accusation of railroading by Government. The planning inspector considered a great deal of the evidence and looked in significant detail at matters such as the impact on Victoria Tower Gardens and, crucially, the Buxton Memorial and other existing memorials. The inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed the public benefits of the scheme. The design and the layout will take the right approach to respecting those existing monuments, particularly those which are listed. As I have said, the planning process is the correct way to consider these issues. It is not necessary—indeed, it would not be right—for debates on the Bill to become concerned with the minutia of planning matters.

Let me say again, on Third Reading, that the Bill deals with a very narrow point in the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That was the only issue that was found to be an obstacle to construction in Victoria Tower Gardens. Let me say again for the convenience of the House and for the certainty of those outside, the Bill creates no precedent in its alleviation of the clause within that Act. It sets no precedent elsewhere in Victoria Tower Gardens, or elsewhere.

We regret to recall that antisemitism is at record levels. The devastatingly clear speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), just yesterday put that into very clear view. A great grandson of the survivor Lily Ebert has said:

“When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses.”

We must do that to ensure that the pernicious weed of antisemitism can be grubbed up and that the stain that it is on some sections of society is removed.

Let me conclude as I began, by expressing my thanks to Members for their contribution on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading. I am grateful to the Clerks of the House, as always, for supporting the smooth running of the Bill, and to the Holocaust memorial team in my Department for their policy and Bill management support. I look forward to watching the Bill’s progress in the other place from this place. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to the Father of the House for allowing me enough time to say what I want to say. I hope that my colleagues will bear with me.

My mother’s family were victims of the Nazi regime’s persecution. My uncle was imprisoned in Dachau in 1936, but got out with the help of Scandinavian friends. All my mother’s half-brothers and sisters left Germany and, except for one, never returned. The persecution hung over my mother’s childhood every day and was never forgotten for the rest of her life. I was born much later, but I have always had a sense of shame and horror about the atrocities committed by the German state during the Holocaust. I owe it to the millions of Jews who perished at the hands of the country in which I was born to convert this shame into political activity. I will always stand up and make sure that such unspeakable cruelty does not happen again.

The education I received in Germany made sure that I never forgot the part that my birth country played in the suffering of millions. Although Britain has a different legacy, it remains important that future generations in this country are as just as informed and educated. One of the most significant lessons that we can learn is about ensuring that we identify the initial indicators of injustice. We must remember that the atrocities of the Holocaust began by creating communities of division and hatred. We must prevent the same prejudice from rearing its head today.

There is no place more suitable for the memorial than Victoria Tower Gardens. Having the memorial right at the heart of our democracy will serve as a constant reminder of the deadly consequences of fascism and racism. Members of Parliament and the public must be able to feel this history to ensure that the legacy of the Holocaust does not end up in the periphery of our minds. The rise in antisemitism in the UK is a reminder that we cannot be complacent when it comes to education on the world’s oldest hatred. Holocaust denial is becoming more prolific, with conspiracies spread on social media, and we must confront this.

At a time when the Holocaust moves from living memory into history, it is more important than ever that we protect the facts of the Holocaust by creating a learning centre alongside the memorial. As Holocaust survivors become ever fewer and frailer, it is vital that progress is made rapidly. Work has not started, despite the memorial being promised eight years ago. Our beloved survivors are in their 80s and 90s, and will not be with us forever. We have to preserve their testimonies and the memories of their families for future generations.

I recently met Susan Pollack MBE, a 93-year-old Holocaust survivor, to mark Yom HaShoah. Susan is an avid champion of Holocaust education, and still speaks in schools across the country to share her testimony. She is especially supportive of the campaign to build a Holocaust memorial and education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we owe it to her and survivors like her to make sure that she can see it open while she is with us. Sadly, the building of the memorial and learning centre has been beset by delays. It is important to make sure that local voices are heard, but we politicians must always consider a balance of interests. If we sincerely believe in the importance of this project, we must get on with it now and not wait any longer.

Sir Ben Helfgott MBE, who passed away last year, will never be able visit the site. He had looked forward to taking his family to the memorial and education centre. As Sir Ben said before his passing, the memorial will

“ensure that the memory of the six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators are never forgotten, and that my story, and the story of my fellow survivors can continue to be told forever.”

Renters (Reform) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

The assessment is there purely to determine the timeliness of possession proceedings. In addition, we must acknowledge that there are other barriers to possession, such as the role of local authorities and bailiffs in the process. I hope that that is what the assessment is able to draw out. On Rentstart in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, I do not believe that our reforms will affect its relationships with landlords, but I am more than happy to meet him and Rentstart to understand its concerns more clearly and see if we can do anything to address them.

Government new clause 35 requires the Government to arrange for a review of the new tenancy system, in particular the impact of removing fixed terms and the operation of grounds for possession. That review will be carried out by an independent person, who will produce a report of their findings. The new clause requires the Government to lay the report before Parliament within 18 months of the earliest date on which the new tenancy system is applied to existing tenancies. We recognise that removing fixed terms is a significant change for the sector, and the review will explicitly consider the impact of the change. It will also consider how comprehensive and fair the reformed grounds for possession are, as well as the extent to which they are operating effectively, so that all parties can have confidence in them.

As I have said, the new tenancy system is a huge change for the sector—the biggest in 30 years—and it is right that we commit in legislation to reviewing its impact and implementation, and that we consider whether changes are needed based on real-world evidence. That will ensure that the system works as well as possible for all parties in the long term.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I have mentioned several times in debate, and in a useful meeting that I had with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who is here, that there is a need to amend the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the same time, because there is a danger that frustrated rogue landlords will refer back to that legislation, which is very badly understood and not well enforced by the police and local authorities. Will the Minister say a few things about that?

[Jacob Young]

I am more than happy to address those points before the end of the debate, but I think that I have written to the hon. Lady about them. If I have not, I will ensure that I do in order to be clear about the amendments she has tabled.

Government new clause 36 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to Parliament on the stock of residential tenancies in the private rented sector. That report will need to be provided in the five years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Reports under that duty would cover, but not be limited to, an analysis of the number, location and size of private rented sector properties. The new clause ensures that regular analysis of such information is available for scrutiny and debate.

I am aware that several Members have raised concerns about the interaction between the property portal and the role of selective licensing. The two systems have separate, distinct purposes: the portal will gather data on private rented sector ownership and property standards in England, providing an information source for local authorities to have oversight of the whole private rented sector in their area. It will help landlords to understand their legal obligations and will give tenants the information they need to make informed choices. Meanwhile, selective licensing provides local housing authorities with the powers to license privately rented properties within a designated area to address specific local issues, including poor housing conditions and high levels of antisocial behaviour or crime. While there will be overlap with data gathered through the portal, the information required for licences in these areas will be specific to the issue being tackled and will support more intensive enforcement action in the areas that need it most.

We do not want to see selective licensing abolished, but we do want to ensure that our reforms are streamlined and that burdens are minimised for landlords and local authorities. That is why I am committing to a review of selective licensing and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation to consider how we can reduce burdens and make the system more effective for landlords, tenants and local authorities. I am keen to work closely with Members and the wider sector on this issue, and will provide further details in due course.

I have sat on many Bill Committees in this House, and have now been privileged to lead my first Bill Committee, facing the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. He has been a great person to work with and has sought at every opportunity to make sure the Bill works and is effective. I said to him in Committee that we would listen to suggestions for how we can improve the Bill, and we are doing so today. For tenants, we are expanding the homelessness prevention grant and closing loopholes in the system; for landlords, we are introducing an initial six-month tenancy and giving them certainty that our reforms will work. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments: it gives tenants security and landlords fairness. Our amendments continue to strike that balance, and I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

While I respect the views of the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who raised some valid points about the county court system and the pressures on it, as someone representing a large number of private renters, I must nevertheless express my concerns and share those raised by the shadow Minister and others about the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise on no-fault evictions. I rise, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, to comment specifically on the proposals in relation to students, to support new clause 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and to speak to amendment 260, which stands in my name.

Students form a substantial part of the private rented sector. Back in July, the all-party parliamentary group organised a meeting to ensure that their views were heard. We brought together people from different nations of the UK and from all parts of the country. The Minister—sadly, he is not currently in his place—would have found it useful, because it highlighted a number of issues in the Bill that have not been properly thought through. I have discussed with the Minister the issues that came out of our meeting, and I am grateful to him for having found that time, but I want to share some reflections at this point in the Bill’s progress.

First, on the decision to extend grounds for eviction from purpose-built student accommodation to houses in multiple occupation and potentially to other student renters, there are mixed views across the country. Some are worried that exempting students makes them more attractive to less scrupulous landlords as potentially second-class, less protected tenants. Others, though, were concerned that giving students the same protection as other renters would force landlords to leave the student market, with that point made by landlords in areas where there was significant pressure on the housing market. Overall, we reached the same view as the Select Committee: on balance, the exemption is probably right, but it needs to be kept under review.

There is, however, a wider problem with the whole approach to students in the Bill. It seems that the Government have approached students with a one-size-fits-all model: they are undergraduates aged 18 to 21, living away from the parental home from the first time, and living there during term time only. However, students at our meeting were at pains to point out that they are not a homogeneous group. There are mature students who are renting in their home city and need to be there all the time, and students with families. Many courses do not start in September and are not on the cycle on which the Government’s amendments are premised. There are postgraduate taught programmes on a different, longer cycle. There are postgraduate research students on full-time programmes over several years, who are like any young professional. There are mixed households of students and non-students, particularly where groups of friends form and perhaps one member graduates.

I discussed all those variations with the Minister— I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—and his view was that any atypical student would simply not be subject to the exemption, partly because these issues have not been thought through properly. That might be in their favour because they will have greater protection, or it might leave them out in the cold because landlords will find them less attractive within the student market. Again, that emphasises the need to keep the impact of the student proposals under close review.

As the Minister resumes his seat I will move to my amendment 260, which raises a further issue that he referred to: the cycle of student tenancies, which I have discussed with him and on which he was sympathetic. When some of us were students, undergraduates would start university in September, settle in and make friendship groups, and towards the end of the academic year, after Easter, they would start looking for accommodation for the subsequent year. We have seen a landlord-driven arms race, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to it, in which they have pressured students ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year.

It is now the norm in many parts of the country that students starting a course in September are put under pressure by landlords the following month to enter into a contract for the following year. That forces them to pay a substantial deposit at a point in their life when they already have significant additional costs. It also forces them into joint tenancies with groups of people who they might discover later in the year are probably not who they want to live with in the subsequent year. Appeals to landlords to step out of the contract into which they entered are invariably rejected.

As the Government’s proposals are to regulate on the basis of that tenancy cycle, my proposition is that we try to make that cycle work better by saying that designated student contracts should not start sooner than March of the year in which students will take occupation in September. That would be in the interests of tenants, for the reasons that all of us who represent students will know. Setting a defined starting point will also end the arms race, in the interests of landlords.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The tendency that the hon. Gentleman refers to is not new. My daughter, who graduated in 2011 and therefore started in 2008, was already under that pressure. He is right that for a lot of young people it is incredibly difficult to find a group of people they want to live with the following year within a month of arriving at university. His proposals are commendable and I hope the Government are listening.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It does vary in different parts of the country, but the way in which it has come earlier and earlier each year, to the ludicrous position where students are being forced into contracts for the subsequent year almost at the moment they start their first year, clearly needs to be addressed. As I said, I have discussed this issue with the Minister. When we talked about it he seemed sympathetic, so I hope it is an issue we can address as the Bill progresses.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Before I start my remarks, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My amendments—amendments 39 to 41—all refer to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I have raised this issue with the Government for the past two years, after one of my constituents, who is a lecturer in law at Bristol University, came to me with his concerns. To be fair to the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), had a meeting with that group of academics, but then I heard nothing, which was a little bit disappointing. I have, just this afternoon, received a reply from the Minister. I thank him for that, but it was dated yesterday and only sent to me today. I will look at it very carefully, but it is still important that I raise here what I have to say.

There are two parts to amendment 39, which relates to the law on harassment of a residential occupier. At the moment, the law is complex and confusing, particularly for lay people, and difficult to enforce. I have glanced over the response from the Minister. The Government believe that there is currently enough power of enforcement. As I understand it, the 1977 Act is quite unknown. Local authorities and the police do not know enough about it. I wonder how we can work in that space to ensure that any unintended consequences brought in by the new legislation will not allow rogue landlords, or those who do not want to do the right thing, and refer them to other pieces of legislation.

First, the amendment would change the law so that everyone who is harassing a residential occupier to try to get them to move out of the property is subject to the same law. Currently, if a criminal landlord is harassing the tenant, the law is fairly clear. However, it might be another individual who is harassing the tenant to get them to move out. In this case, the local authority has to try to find out whether the person doing the harassing is an agent acting for the rogue landlord.

There is also often deliberate obscurity about the identity of the landlord. Investigating the relationship between individuals to establish their precise legal relationship is time consuming and unnecessary, where the aim of the legislation is to protect residential occupiers from harassment. The amendment changes the law to make enforcement easier for local authorities. The change will not affect the position of landlords. They will continue to be subject to the same law. It is only the local authority that can prosecute this offence, and it would still need to prove that a rogue landlord, their agent or any other person knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that their actions would have the result of causing the occupier to leave.

The other thing that the amendment would do is clarify the law. Currently, if a rogue landlord interferes with services that are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household, that can constitute harassment. However, it is not clearly stated what those services are—I can think of essential services, such as electricity, cutting the water off or even changing the locks—so it is important that we take that into consideration. We are not talking about decent landlords, as I have always made very clear. It is about getting to those landlords who are clearly not doing the right thing.

As I said, it is not clearly stated what the services are. Amendment 39 sets out a list of such services, including water, gas and electricity, as well as access to “electronic communications networks and services” as defined in section 32 of the Communications Act 2003.

Amendment 40 deals with three issues. First, the law on whether certain occupiers are protected by the legislation on illegal eviction is very complex, and it can be very difficult to establish. That is because some occupiers—for example, those who live with the landlord—are excluded from the protections in the law and can therefore be evicted without a notice or court order. That creates an incentive for sham arrangements whereby a rogue landlord might pretend to live with a tenant to circumvent the protections in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The amendment reverses the burden of proof, placing it on the landlord, who must establish that an occupier is not protected by the law. It is based on the idea that everyone has the basic protection of the law unless they are in an exclusionary category for a good reason. The presumption should be that they are protected.

Inter Faith Network Closure

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan]

My hon. Friend has expressed that point very well.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I have been contacted by my constituent, Diana Francis—who is a Quaker—about her deep concern regarding the sudden withdrawal of funds for the Inter Faith Network. My inter-faith group in Bath has done invaluable work to bring communities together, nurturing tolerance, understanding, and the dialogue that is so important between people of different religious backgrounds. Can the Minister not see how this sudden decision to withdraw funding at a time of heightened tensions only drives division, and that people in my constituency are really concerned that there is nothing that will replace an organisation as unique as the Inter Faith Network?

[Felicity Buchan]

As I have said, we strongly welcome all of the inter-faith work that happens across our communities. We have always been clear that the Inter Faith Network needed to diversify its funding sources, and we were also very clear that funding would not be given after 2024 in any instance. That was communicated to the IFN back in July.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

6. What assessment he has made of the causes of council budget deficits.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

23. What assessment he has made of the causes of council budget deficits.

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

The Department works closely with the local government sector and other Departments to understand specific demand and cost pressures. The provisional local government finance settlement for 2024-25 makes available over £64 billion—an increase in core spending power of almost £4 billion or 6.5% in cash terms. We stand behind councils up and down the country to deliver the services that their communities look for.

[Simon Hoare]

If the money from that Department is ring-fenced, it is not at the discretion of the county councillors where they use it; they have to use it for that purpose. I would take the hon. Gentleman’s concern a little more seriously if he had taken part in the parliamentary engagement, as 97 colleagues across the House did, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), or attended the Westminster Hall debate about Mid Devon Council funding, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).

[Wera Hobhouse]

I appreciate the time that the Minister took to answer my questions at the drop-in session. We will not cut NHS waiting times without good, well-resourced social care. My Liberal Democrat council colleagues in Bath are on track to bring social care back in-house, which means better care that is better delivered locally and long-term savings. However, even Bath & North East Somerset Council, as he knows and as I have already pointed out, is under severe financial strain. Will he therefore commit to extra funding to allow it to deliver the vital social care that my constituents so desperately need?

[Simon Hoare]

Adult social care is a demand on all upper-tier authorities. I commend BANES Council on the work it is doing; that is precisely the demonstration of flexibility and innovation in local government that we look for to deliver quality services in a cost-efficient way, and it deserves our approbation for that. With the Department of Health and Social Care, we keep under review precisely those policies relating to adult social care, to make sure that those who are most in need receive the services that they need in a timely fashion.

Renewable Energy Providers: Planning Considerations

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on introducing this important subject with such knowledge. She will not be surprised to hear that I too face a lot of abuse online, but for sometimes taking the opposite position. We on the Opposition Benches are concerned that what the Government call a pragmatic approach to net zero means further delay, which is the one thing we cannot afford.

Net zero should be non-negotiable. At a time when we should be strengthening our climate commitments, it is folly to weaken them. The UK has done well to lead the way on climate change, but recently this Government sadly seem to have given up on the country’s leadership position. How unnecessary! Renewables are the cheapest form of energy and would secure our energy supply. Moving rapidly towards renewables is central to reaching net zero by 2050, and will help to limit the devastating impacts of climate change. The Climate Change Committee has said that we are not moving fast enough towards renewables. Offshore and onshore wind development has been slow, and solar is particularly off-track. It is just not good enough.

The proportion of renewable projects being delayed is on the rise. Grid capacity, which the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, is the obvious issue. However, the planning process must also be improved. My region of the south-west built the UK’s first transmission-connected solar farm. Despite its success, the developers said that planning was one of the most significant hurdles to delivering renewable energy at scale. Speeding up the planning process is vital; it takes up to five years to gain approval for an offshore wind farm after the application has been submitted to the planning system. We do not have the time for that in this race to net zero.

Resourcing needs to improve. The Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees do not have enough resources to carry out timely and accurate reviews. It is all well and good saying that there is a debate, and ping-pong about what or who is responsible—is it the national planning framework, or is it local planners? However, if we do not have enough local planners to make these decisions, all these things get desperately delayed. Local government needs more resources and funding to make sure that planning decisions are made in a timely manner; otherwise, there are delayed projects, and delayed progress towards net zero.

The Government must make proper funding available. Local authorities depend on national Government to give them more money, so that the Planning Inspectorate can also do its job. That resource is also missing at national level. That is simply about funding.

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of clarity, is the hon. Lady saying that local people should have more say, and local communities should be more empowered, or that they should have less say, and that there should be more direction from the centre? I could not quite understand the point she was making.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman made that intervention, and happy to clarify for him. We Liberal Democrats believe passionately in local decision making, so that is obviously what needs to be strengthened, but local decision making cannot happen if we do not have the resources in our planning departments.

We have also been talking about consultation. I was a councillor for ten years, and was always appalled at how poor consultation was, mainly because councils had statutory obligations to consult only in a very small area. Why do we not widen that out, particularly in rural areas? If the obligation is just a matter of distance, then 10 people will be consulted, and awareness of big planning applications will spread only through local knowledge, rather than as a result of the council approaching people directly. Why do councils not do that? Because they do not have the money. If they do not have the statutory obligation to consult widely, they will consult only a small number of people. If we want to strengthen local decision making, that must change. I absolutely believe in local decision making, and if a planning decision does become a national decision—if an inspectorate comes in—then, of course, we do not want delays there either, because delays are unacceptable either way. That applies to any planning decision, by the way, not just renewable planning.

The Government must also do more to remove the barriers to renewable energy. Renewables developers still face a planning system that is stacked against onshore wind. It is treated differently from every other energy source or infrastructure project. If that persists, we will not get the new onshore wind investment we need to rapidly cut bills and boost energy security. Onshore wind farms are actually popular: 74% of voters are supportive of onshore wind, and 76% of people would support a renewable energy project in their area. That support holds strong in places that already have an onshore wind farm; 72% of people who live within five miles of one support building more. That addresses a problem that we have: people are anxious about things that they do not know, and a lot of political hay can be made with that, but when people actually have a wind farm development nearby, they support it. That is not surprising: communities benefit massively from onshore wind, both directly—for example, from developers, through bill reductions—and indirectly, through the wider socioeconomic benefits that such investment can bring.

Carbon Brief calculated that the de facto ban on onshore wind cost consumers £5.1 billion last year. That is unforgivable during a cost of living crisis. Planning rules must not block the benefits of renewable energy. The Government must bring the planning rules for onshore wind in England back in line with those for any other type of energy infrastructure, so that it can compete on a level playing field, and so that each application is determined on its own merits.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of community buy-in. We need to win hearts and minds, and to persuade people that renewable projects are good for their communities. Yes, good consultation is part of that; if local communities feel that they have not been properly consulted, they will get their backs up. I absolutely believe in proper consultation. Only with consent from our communities can we deliver the path to net zero. That is why empowering local communities is so vital. More and more power and decision making has been eroded from local government—I can say that, because I was a councillor between 2004 and 2014. We still had a lot of decision-making powers, but they have been eroded in the last 10 years.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but when it comes to onshore wind, she must surely acknowledge that consultation often results in opposition. The problem with onshore wind is that too many of the applications are for areas of outstanding natural beauty or beautiful rural areas, rather than, say, docks or industrial estates. Does the hon. Lady think the focus should be on placing onshore wind farms in more suitable locations?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. A long time ago, when I was a councillor, a big wind farm was built in my ward. I remember well the local objections to it; people said, “Oh, the beautiful, natural environment of our hills!” The natural environment of the hills had been destroyed decades or centuries ago. There were no trees any more. Local people come forward and talk about our beautiful natural environment, but the natural environment had become like that, and wind farms are now becoming part of the landscape that we are creating for people. Once wind farms are there, people stop objecting to them; surveys are very clear on that.

Of course, it is clear that people are always worried about change. We are building something new and taking away something that was there, but if we are doing so for something that is so important, why can we not make the case that a wind turbine might be a much nicer thing to look at than, for example, a coal-fired power station, which we also need to put somewhere if we need energy? What we do as humans creates some disruption to our local environment, and it has done so forever, so what do we want? We need to get to net zero, build this infrastructure and build wind turbines, including in places where we can see them. As responsible politicians, it is up to us to make the case for that. We have no time to waste: it is a race to net zero, and it is difficult. Yes, some people do not like to look at wind farms.

[Sir John Hayes]

So much for local decision making!

[Wera Hobhouse]

But this is something of which we can persuade people, and I believe in persuading local people. Yes, that sometimes takes time, but it is for us to do, because we have that persuading power and are in the position of influencing people. That is where we should be, rather than always being on the side of the nay-sayers. That is my honest position. I know that it is not easy; I have been there, too, in my time.

I commend the Liberal Democrats on Bath and North East Somerset Council, which has become the first council in England to adopt an energy-based net zero housing policy. That requires that all new major non-residential buildings must achieve net zero in operational energy. Research from the University of Bath indicates that the policy is likely to establish significant carbon savings in new buildings and reduce energy bills for occupants. Again, did my local council sometimes have difficulty persuading people? Yes, it did, but our local election results show persuasively that where we go out and make the case, we win—even as local councillors. Let us ensure that we persuade people and take them with us. I absolutely believe in that, but I also passionately believe that it is possible to take people with us if we confront people with the alternatives.

Unfortunately, Government funding cuts have forced many local authorities to make sacrifices on climate change policy, as climate change does not come under their statutory duties. That must change. Planning legislation must be bound to our climate change legislation, so that climate change takes greater weight in planning decisions. A major reason why renewable projects are waiting up to 15 years to connect to the grid is that the planning approval process is not adequately focused on the urgency of delivering net zero. The Royal Town Planning Institute argues that nothing should be planned unless the idea has first been demonstrated to be fit for net zero. The Government should certainly consider the institute’s proposals further.

We cannot wait any longer. The UK needs to move further faster towards renewables. Improving the planning system to quicken the building process is an important place to start.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this important debate.

I have a specific project that I wish to speak about today. I established and chair the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, and I have championed floating offshore wind, or FLOW, projects across the Celtic sea, working collaboratively with developers, ports, MPs and associated businesses right around the Devon, Cornwall and south Wales coast. I therefore find myself in a particularly difficult position, as are my constituents, on the proposed White Cross wind farm in my North Devon constituency. This project is 80 MW, so it is only a demonstrator project, and it has secured a distribution-level grid connection at Yelland. Given its scale, it has avoided being a national infrastructure project, and decisions about its development now lie with the Marine Management Organisation, which is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the local planning authority.

The local community is hugely supportive of FLOW. Although there are some environmental concerns about the six proposed turbines, it is the cable corridor that is proving highly controversial. I have been expressing my concerns about the proposed cable route ever since the project came to light. The route submitted to the planning authority involves tunnelling through several miles of sand dunes, a large seaside car park, holiday chalets, a golf course and possibly a world war two munitions dump, and it will take several years to construct. The quickest route to the plug-in point at Yelland is across Crow Point, a very active sand system and highly designated sand dune complex. Although that route is potentially more environmentally contested, it would cause far less damage to hospitality businesses in a constituency that is dependent on its tourism economy. No one has been able to explain to me who decided on the cable corridor, and both the MMO and the local authority advise that they have no influence and cannot comment on whether a better corridor might exist.

White Cross is owned by Flotation Energy, which has recently been taken over by the Japanese company TEPCO. As somebody in the industry observed last night:

“Their website is a disgrace. There is no contact details for anyone within the company. Just a generic reply section. Very poor and unacceptable. They are taking advantage of the consenting regime because they are under 100 MW. Compared to the work done on other projects it is a joke.”

Other developers have fallen over themselves to engage with the APPG, which works cross-party and cross-Government, but not White Cross. I would like to put on the record my wish to meet TEPCO, and for it to explain why it is bulldozing its project through our community.

One of the objectives of the APPG for the Celtic sea has been to co-ordinate a more strategic approach to this new region of offshore renewables, to avoid some of the cable issues seen on the east coast. The APPG’s preference throughout has been to establish a single cable corridor to Devon and Cornwall, and one to south Wales, in order to reduce sea floor damage, as well as cabling onshore as the bigger projects go out to sea. The project, which is ready to bid for a contract, will connect to Pembroke, and I know that the cable corridor there has been well managed, and that landowners have been fully consulted. Local landowners are being threatened with compulsory purchase orders, and businesses were not consulted or advised until the planning application was submitted. Councillors are completely at sea when it comes to dealing with this type of planning application.

Additionally, the project is now taking up almost the entire time of one planning officer, in an area where planning is the biggest factor slowing down commercial development and the building of the homes we so desperately need. I hear that the planning department apparently does not have any planning grounds to reject the application. Any support that the Minister’s team can provide to the council and councillors on planning would be most welcome.

I have spoken with the MMO and it also does not believe it that it has grounds to reject the application, or the ability to challenge it. It appears that the developer has been able to choose a cable route of their suiting, without any agreement with the local community or the bodies that provide the planning and leasing.

My concerns are multiple. There are only two potential grid plug-ins along the north Devon coast, and these are vital national infrastructure resources at this time—Yelland and Alverdiscott. My understanding is that Yelland is smaller, but I have been unable to speak to National Grid ahead of today to clarify whether the White Cross development will completely utilise the capacity at Yelland. The concern is that it will not.

My view, and that of many in my constituency, is this: if we have to endure this level of disruption to get a cable corridor installed on land, does the development maximise the potential of the Yelland socket? There is growing concern that the developers have chosen a scale that avoids being classed as a national infrastructure project and the scrutiny that would come with it. That may mean that the socket is not optimised.

I have asked White Cross why it could not work with the other projects in the region and consider Alverdiscott for its cable. I was advised that it is too far and therefore too expensive. If a strategic view of cable corridors was taken, the costs might be reduced, but I do not believe that this has even been considered.

I recognise that Alverdiscott has had concerns about the situation it finds itself in as a hub for plugging in huge renewable projects. It is vital that communities that are asked to host this sort of infrastructure are properly compensated. White Cross does not seem to have offered any community reimbursement, as recommended in the report by the electricity networks commissioner, Nick Winser.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, and I agree with a lot of what she is saying. As she is talking about compensation, will she explain what compensation would be adequate?

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Please do not think that this is a nimby issue. North Devon is home to the Fullabrook wind farm, which, when it was built, was the largest onshore wind farm in the country, at 66 MW. The project established Fullabrook CIC—community interest company—which was set up with £1 million from the then owners of the wind farm. It has now given over £1.58 million for community projects and receives £100,000 per annum from the current owners. I find it bewildering that White Cross has seemingly made no offer of community involvement. Indeed, its only offer is to decimate huge sections of coastline for its own financial gain.

I am gravely concerned that White Cross is not acting in any way appropriately with this development, and is taking advantage of the planning system, which it has chosen to use. I strongly believe that the entire Celtic sea FLOW project should be considered as one national infrastructure project. That would enable proper strategic planning and ensure that we hit our offshore wind targets, and that communities are included in decisions and appropriately recompensed for hosting infrastructure.

It is increasingly possible that the development will undermine all the support for FLOW that has been generated along this coastline. Hundreds of objections have been lodged, and further meetings are planned by local parishes in the coming weeks. It seems that the developers have carte blanche. As someone who is hugely supportive of the renewable opportunities ahead of us—as is my constituency—I ask that steps are taken to find a way through this cross-departmental maze to have this development withdrawn in its current form; that a better plan for the cabling is devised; that the Yelland socket is optimised, if used; and that the community across North Devon are properly consulted and recompensed for hosting this infrastructure.

With energy security so critical, alongside reaching net zero, surely we can devise a better way to install just six wind turbines, so that we can progress more quickly with these crucial infrastructure projects, with community support and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When societies and civilisations lose their sense of the spiritual—their sight of God—the void is filled by causes, which, like the divine, are immense, inspire guilt and are pursued with intolerant zeal. Our cause, rather like the ancient people who danced for the rain or worshipped the sun, is the weather, which is now almost always described as “the climate”. All can be sacrificed, rather like religious fanaticism, in the name of the pursuit of our climate goals. Whether that is the wellbeing of people in London, who face ULEZ and not being able to get to hospital, school or work, or people across our constituencies who will have to replace their gas boilers with air pumps, costing thousands and thousands of pounds that they can ill afford, or whether it is eating up our most precious agricultural land with acres of onshore solar plants—they are not farms; they are industrial structures—all can be defended, as communities are ridden roughshod.

With his typical skill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) teased out of the remaining Liberal Democrat in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the dilemma for those whose zeal is such that they want to impose these things on local communities but dare not say so. The truth is that communities are ridden roughshod because of that zeal. Across the country, a blight is coming. That blight will be pylons in Essex, trunking in Devon and the eating up of tens of thousands of acres of the most precious agricultural land in Lincolnshire. That is unacceptable, communities do not want it and their views should be respected.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but what are the alternatives? Does he not recognise that we need to get to net zero by 2050? We need to provide political leadership to take our communities along with us. We are making the case for community energy, for example, which is a wonderful way to take communities with us. Does he not believe that that is our job—that we take communities with us, rather than denying net zero?

[Sir John Hayes]

Denying “our goal”, “our God”—I believe it is the hon. Lady’s God, certainly. She is right that it is important that what we do in respect of energy, which I spend a great deal more time thinking about than she ever has, needs to reflect a balance. Everyone who understands energy provision knows that renewables can and should be an important part of an energy mix. Yet they are not nirvana for all kinds of reasons—we need the flexibility provided by the kinds of energy provision that can be switched on and off, in a way that solar and wind cannot—but it is vital that we invest in renewable technology.

That is why, for example, I have been a passionate supporter of offshore wind, which is a very effective way of generating energy in a way that does less harm to the environment than onshore wind, which the hon. Lady champions. That essentially means littering the countryside with small numbers of turbines, which are much less productive, much less concentrated and with countless connections to the grid. That greatly increases transmission and distribution costs, which already represent 15% of every energy bill. It is both economically foolish and environmentally damaging to site wind turbines in presumably thousands of locations across the country, when we can concentrate large numbers of much larger turbines offshore, producing much more energy, with a single point of connection to the grid.

There is a similar situation with solar. I imagine that the hon. Member for Bath will know, as others may, that in Germany a much higher proportion of solar power is located on buildings. In this country, our record is very poor, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I would be interested to know what further steps he intends to take to incentivise, indeed oblige, adding solar panels to buildings. Warehouses are springing up all over the country, but I do not see a solar panel on any of them. There are large numbers of industrial sites, commercial sites and all kinds of other places where we could have solar panels.

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely. That brings me to—I do not know whether my hon. Friend anticipated this by a kind of telepathy or just through her wisdom—the next point that I intended to make. Recent worldwide events have taught us of the need for national economic resilience. We are moving to a post-liberal age—thankfully—when we will no longer take the view that we can buy whatever we want from wherever we want and it does not matter how much is produced locally or how far supply lines are extended.

We know that domestic production and manufacture of goods and food is vital for our resilience and security; in order to have that, we need to preserve the best agricultural land to grow the crops that we need. If people were really worried about the environment, they would have thought these things through a little more fully and so understand that shortening supply lines reduces the number of air miles and, indeed, road miles between where food is made and where it is consumed—as we once did—rather than extending supply lines endlessly, with the immense cost to the environment and in every other way. We need more domestic production, but to have more domestic production we must recognise that there should be no industrial solar or wind developments on grade 1, 2 or 3 agricultural land, yet that is exactly what is proposed.

[Wera Hobhouse]

No one can deny that we need an explosion of rooftop solar panels; we Liberal Democrats absolutely agree. But can the right hon. Gentleman give me an example of where good agricultural land has been used for solar farms? I ask because outside Bath, my constituency, a good solar farm has been built on land that cannot be used for food growing.

[Sir John Hayes]

Let me give the hon. Lady a precise example. In Lincolnshire, there are currently applications for large-scale solar developments equivalent to 62 Hyde Parks, totalling 9,109 hectares or 1.3% of the total land across the county. She may know that Lincolnshire boasts the highest proportion of grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land of any county. These solar plants are proposed on the best growing land in the country. Once that land is lost, it will never be regained. There is this nonsense that the solar panels will be there for only 20 or 30 years. What about the 20 or 30 years while they are, when we cannot grow the crops that we need to survive? This is a preposterous circumstance.

I had a meeting this morning with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and I met at the weekend a Minister of State in the same Department. Those Ministers responsible for the environment and agriculture recognise that it is unacceptable to lose this scale of land—the best growing land in the country—because of these developments, largely by businesses that have no connection with the locality whatever and are entirely careless of the impact that this will have on food production and local communities. This rides roughshod over the wishes of local people and local councillors. It is frankly a scandal that we should do that while simultaneously claiming that we want to build more national resilience through food security. Let us make more of what we consume in this country, here in this country; let us reduce our dependence on places far-off of which we know little—and in many cases wish we knew less; and let us have a Government who respect the interests of local communities and defend our land from this blight.

Finally, there is also the sensitive matter of aesthetics. Do we really value the English landscape, or do we not? Is this going to be a green and pleasant for the generations to come, or is it going to be a place full of industrial wind turbines and large-scale solar developments? I know which of those futures I want for my children and grandchildren. Because I know that the Minister is a fine man with a strong sense of the aesthetic, I rather suspect that he sees that future too, but we need urgent policy to make clear to planners and others that we will not simply allow communities to be beleaguered by blight.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Although the right hon. Gentleman and I have had many disagreements, there is no one who doubts that he is a very assiduous constituency Member, and he is right that the pressures faced by a number of people in the private rented sector are significant. The principal reason for those rental pressures is inflation. We can debate the causes of inflation, but this Government are determined to do everything possible to halve it. and I believe the steps that we are taking have shown progress so far.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Please forgive me; I am just responding to the right hon. Gentleman. It is the case that our effective system of tribunals ensures that excessive rents that are way out of kilter with the market can be dealt with. However, one of the challenges of rent controls of the kind that I believe he is advocating, and that have been advocated by others on the Labour Front Bench, is that they are proven to reduce supply overall, and a reduction of supply on the scale that an intervention of the kind that he puts forward would only increase rents and reduce the capacity of people to be able to live in the private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is nearly always right and always honourable.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I, too, put on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some months ago, I raised with the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who is present, my concerns about the illegal eviction laws, which are over 40 years old, complex and difficult to understand. Unless we reform illegal eviction law alongside section 21, I worry that bad landlords will take matters into their own hands. Has the Department taken into account the concerns that I raised with Government officials about reforming illegal eviction law at the same time?

[Michael Gove]

I know that my colleague the Housing and Planning Minister has met the hon. Lady, and we will respond in further detail about the steps that we propose to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

We have to get into that issue, but we also have to deal with the root cause, which is that we do not have enough adequate social housing in this country. We do not have enough housing, and that is because of 13 years of the Tories’ failure to build the housing that we need and to challenge Members on their Back Benches. The Prime Minister has failed to challenge those on his Back Benches who have delayed house building in this country when we need it so desperately.

The Secretary of State mentioned the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and the White Paper, but I am disappointed that many of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper have since been dropped. The Secretary of State said that he is open-minded, and I am glad about that, because the Bill is silent on proposals to make blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits illegal. That sort of unacceptable practice must be stamped out, and I hope he will work with us to make sure the Bill does so. In the White Paper, the Government also promised to introduce the decent homes standard to give renters safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. That standard is missing from the Bill, but I did hear what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. I gently say to him that we cannot miss an opportunity to give private renters the protection—the long-term security and better rights and conditions—that they deserve.

[Wera Hobhouse]

To ensure that tenants have that safety, does the right hon. Lady agree that we need a new regulator for all private rentals with the power to subject landlords to regular inspections?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill talks about the ombudsman. We need to make sure that landlords understand their obligations, and where they do not, we need to ensure that there is redress. As I mentioned earlier, that ombudsman must have real teeth, and I hope the Secretary of State understands that. While I respect the landlords who are in the Chamber and those who are listening to this debate—I know many of them do a good job and are trying their best—we have to have a minimum standard. We cannot have circumstances, as we have seen in Greater Manchester, where children are living in very poor conditions. It is really important that we have regulation and, where people are in accommodation that falls below those standards, we have redress.

After four years, the clock is ticking. There can be no more delay, but the Government’s track record does not instil much confidence. On the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own home, and over 1 million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists. Those problems are only going to get worse because the Prime Minister could not stand up to his Back Benchers on house building targets. Now it appears that once again, he is caving in to them, rather than keeping his promises to the British people.

This Bill is an important step forward, supporting renters at the sharp edge of the cost of living crisis, so Labour will work constructively throughout its passage. We will not be the cause of delay—I hope the Secretary of State can say the same about his Back Benchers. If they cannot act in the national interest and support a renters’ reform Bill worthy of its name, let me make clear that our offer is to do so instead, because over the course of our proceedings today, 33 renters will have been put at risk of homelessness because they were issued with a section 21 notice and 11 will have got a visit from the bailiffs evicting them. Every single one of those people will be faced with anxiety about the future—anxiety about having to pay eye-watering moving costs and about whether they will be made completely homeless. They cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to find a backbone and stand up to his party. They cannot afford to wait for the Secretary of State to buy off his Back Benchers, and they cannot afford to wait yet more years for this Government to keep the promises they made to them.

We stand ready to work in the national interest, and will do so with anyone else who is prepared to join us. I urge the House not to waste this chance.

Birmingham City Council

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about Max Caller. He is a first-class professional, and I know he will do an excellent job with the other commissioners. Secondly, I think it is fair to say—I do not want to make a party political point—that the local audit situation requires both investment and leadership. One of the first things I sought to do when I arrived in the Department was to ensure that the Office for Local Government can play a system leadership role in helping to reform and improve that process. I completely agree with the hon. Lady on that.

The hon. Lady’s central point was about task and finish, which some Members may think sounds like a good thing. A task and finish group is a team that sets out to resolve a problem and dissolves itself when the problem is finished. It seems to be the model of what we should have in administration: not a permanent bureaucracy, but a taskforce. However, task and finish in Birmingham, and indeed in some other local authorities, has basically meant the binmen—the scaffies, as we would say in Scotland—knocking off early as soon as they had claimed that they had finished their task and yet claiming for their full working day. Again, it is not an effective way to run any public service.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Councils across the country are struggling under severe financial constraint and there is no doubt that local government is badly underfunded. However, I want to commend my Bath & North East Somerset Council for having shown great prudence in order to rebuild its finances, and I hope the Secretary of State will join me in praising it. The reform of the audit system has been mentioned, but may I ask him: what timeline can we expect for a reform of that system? When does he think the backlog of unpublished opinions will be cleared?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I had the great privilege of visiting Bath recently to look at a housing development. Just as some Labour councils are good, I believe there are one or two Liberal Democrat councils that are good, although I certainly shall not be naming them at this Dispatch Box now. More broadly, we are taking steps to deal with the audit situation she mentions and my hon. Friend the local government Minister can brief her in detail, should she wish, about that situation.