Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Guidance on non-domestic rating and coronavirus—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which this Act is passed, publish guidance for local government bodies on the application of—

(a) the provisions of section 1 of this Act, and

(b) the wider local business support policy framework associated with that section.

(2) In preparing the guidance the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) independent experts, and

(b) representatives of companies whose non-domestic ratings determinations are affected by section 1.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance to local government bodies on the application of the provisions of section 1 of this act. This guidance must be prepared following consultation of independent experts and businesses whose business rates appeals are affected by section 1.

Government amendments 1 to 6.

[Jeff Smith]

I am conscious that we have an important debate to follow and that time is pressing, so I shall be relatively brief. Labour’s broad support for this Bill has not changed. We recognise the urgent need to support businesses, as well as the Valuation Office Agency, and the need to close a legislative gap exploited by unscrupulous directors. The Bill remains lacking in some safeguards. Labour attempted to correct that in Committee, but we were unsuccessful. The new clause is concerned with the resourcing and capacity of the Insolvency Service to deal with the new measures relating to directors of dissolved companies.

As we heard from witnesses in July at the evidence sessions, unscrupulous directors can cause significant suffering to those who have invested in or loaned to their companies. Too often, these directors are able to absolve themselves of their financial responsibilities by dissolving their companies and creating a financial and time barrier to holding them to account. So clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill allow for a director to be investigated and disqualified before their company is restored. That plugs the important gap and is a welcome measure; it removes a costly barrier, both in monetary and time terms, to accountability and financial responsibility.

However, as Duncan Swift, the former president of R3 highlighted in the Bill’s evidence sessions, these provisions could see the Insolvency Service take on 10 to 15 times the number of investigations it currently undertakes. Despite that potential increase in workload, there is no indication in the Bill that the Government plan to increase funding and resources at all for the Insolvency Service, let alone to do so by the significant amount it might need to allow it to cope with the extra investigations. So Labour is calling for new clause 1 to be added to the Bill to ensure that there is appropriate, regular oversight and scrutiny of the Insolvency Service’s ability to carry out this increased workload. If it is not given the resources to carry out its increased responsibilities, clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill become, in effect, redundant. New clause 1 would ensure that parliamentarians and others are kept updated on the Insolvency Service’s ability to carry out its tasks and on any need it has for extra resources. We do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but we think it is important to make this point, particularly given that the Insolvency Service cannot apply to court for the disqualification of a director whose company has been dissolved for more than three years. That means that the Insolvency Service does not just need extra resources to carry out the additional investigations; it needs them to carry out those investigations promptly, within that three-year timeframe.

As Dr Tribe summarised:

“The Insolvency Service needs to be properly funded to ensure that this additional disqualification work can happen.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 18, Q29.]

Although this Bill goes some way to helping tackle financial corruption, the Government could and should go further. The Bill is too narrowly defined for any financial amendments, but the Government could provide a stronger deterrent, beyond disqualification, for unscrupulous directors.

Let me briefly turn to the other new clause and amendments. New clause 2 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and we do not disagree with it. However, we think we do not have to wait for this until the day the Act is passed. It is clear that there is cross-party support for the Bill, that it will pass and that businesses are desperate for support in the current circumstances. So we see no reason why indicative guidance cannot be published and sent to local authorities, as well as possibly indicative amounts for the grants that local authorities will receive, so that they can get on quickly with designing their schemes, ready for when the Act passes. I make the point that we made in Committee that this should not be on a per-head basis; it should take into account the effect of the pandemic on different regions and on different sectors of the economy. I also note the Government’s technical solution, which allowed the backdating of these grants so they effectively apply this financial year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am standing to speak to the wrong provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

That would certainly be many people’s interpretation of how long it has taken the Government to take any firm action. We keep being promised a comprehensive review of company legislation; it cannot come quickly enough. I hope that we will finally see an end to the scandal of the creatures called Scottish limited partnerships, which are too often set up purely as a means to fund organised crime.

Companies House needs to be reformed and probably better resourced. As the Opposition spokesperson—the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)—mentioned, the Bill may place additional demands on the resources of the Insolvency Service. We know that the Financial Conduct Authority needs another complete sorting out. Either it is not doing its job or it has not been asked to do the right job; it probably does not have the resources to deal with fraud on the scale that is now going on right under our nose.

Although I welcome the Bill and we will certainly not oppose it—we have supported it all the way through—we look for assurances from the Government that it is not the end of the road. It can only be allowed to be one tiny step towards finally stopping these people. I remember one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Bill Committee describing the United Kingdom as becoming one of the go-to places of choice for international fraudsters. That is not a badge that any of us should bear with honour. If that badge is applied to the financial services industry, and to the business community in the United Kingdom generally, it will take years—decades—to get rid of and honest businesses will suffer desperately.

The Government have to start to act now. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to tell us today when the comprehensive review of company regulation will come forward, but I certainly hope that we will see it very soon. As DialADeal’s example makes clear, even since we started our consideration of the Bill, further scams have been inflicted on innocent people throughout these islands.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Dame Rosie Winterton will now take the Chair for our important debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.

Building Safety Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My warmest congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think everybody welcomes the new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety in the Bill, but, as many Members have stated, I am equally concerned about the action that is needed now to make existing homes and products safe and to stop leaseholders from being hit with catastrophic bills from building owners to fix historic failures. I also want to put on record my concerns about a statement being issued in the middle of an opening speech presenting the Bill. I think it is absolutely appalling.

Moving on to Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, she concluded that it was the construction industry’s prevalent culture that was undermining building safety. She referred to procurement regimes that were not fit for purpose. In relation to building safety, she added that

“unhelpful behaviours such as contract terms and payment practices which prioritise speed and low cost solutions, exacerbate this situation.”

She concluded that poor procurement and payment practice

“provide poor value for money”

and produce “poor building safety outcomes.” She recommended that contracts’ payment terms and practices should be recorded as part of a proposed digital building safety file. I could not agree more with her conclusions.

There is a toxic culture in too many parts of the construction industry, where fly-by-night firms benefit by accepting the lowest-price jobs achieved by poor payment practices to their supply chain. This Bill provides a unique opportunity to deal with not just the scandal of unsafe buildings, but the scandal of the manipulation of late-payment practices by large, unscrupulous construction companies. Evidence given to Committees of this House following the Carillion collapse revealed the appalling abuse of tier 1 contractors such as Carillion. In spite of my Bill in 2019—the Public Sector Supply Chains (Project Bank Accounts) Bill—to tackle the misery that so many small construction companies continue to face and to protect them from becoming insolvent, as nearly a thousand did after Carillion’s demise, absolutely nothing has been done.

Almost six years on from the Business Department reviewing the practice of retentions that harms thousands of small businesses by depriving them of much needed cash flow, it has sat on its hands. Based on figures provided by the Department in October 2017, every day, almost £1 million-worth of retentions is lost by firms—mainly small businesses—because of upstream insolvencies. Today, according to insolvency specialists, almost 100,000 firms in the industry are under severe financial stress. Small construction firms are having to grapple with the massive cost pressures of their base and many are facing the issues that I have talked about. If an industry is free of the widespread and egregious treatment—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I wish to speak briefly on a few issues that affect my constituents.

First, I heard the intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who asked about the quantum of Barnett consequentials for Wales. The Secretary of State said that the Welsh Government have not devised a scheme for existing consequentials yet. This becomes a bit of a strange paradox, because it would be daft for a Government on a fixed budget to commit to spending more than they have, and they cannot plan for that. If a devolved Administration were to establish a scheme without the certainty that the money was coming, they would then be considered irresponsible. Therefore, it needs to be made clear what those additional consequentials are for the devolved Administrations.

The Scottish Government have proceeded on the basis of the £97 million allocated to the Scottish Parliament and have set up the Scottish Government single building assessment scheme, which prioritises by risk. I pay tribute to Kevin Stewart MSP who, as Minister, spearheaded much of this work. There have been more than 100 expressions of interest in the scheme, but in order to ensure that it reaches as far as it can, the consequentials have to be made absolutely clear so that the problem can be tackled.

Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to those in my constituency who have championed their fellow residents, including Lisa Murray of the Verde Residents Group and Hector Thomson and Barry Cooper of the Lancefield Quay Residents Association. Hector and Barry told me of the difficulties that they have had in obtaining building insurance for the development of which they are a part. There are hundreds of flats in that development and their insurance was suddenly withdrawn on 23 December 2020, leaving them very worried over the Christmas period about what would happen.

Contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, there is a failure in the market. He mentioned Aviva, but my understanding is that it has a limit of £50 million, whereas for Lancefield Quay it is £75 million. I understand that Aviva also has a bar on commercial property as part of that. Sure enough, there is an Indian restaurant at the bottom of Lancefield Quay, which will be exempted from securing coverage if that is indeed the case.

I urge the Minister to solve that problem. People are being offered insurance that is comprehensive but entirely unaffordable—or just about affordable, but not for everyone; at Lancefield Quay there are some people who cannot afford the insurance payments—so they do not have the comprehensive coverage that they think they need. There are implications if someone proceeds without adequate coverage for their mortgage, I understand, so that their property is not properly insured. The Minister needs to look at those issues and find a solution, because this is not working at present, and the Bill does nothing to address that. I also urge the Minister to look at issues with VAT and building materials, because at the moment, the Government are profiting from the work that is being done and residents are not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm, with the Minister at 6.50 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

In the final minutes of the debate, perhaps I can provide some time for the words of one of my constituents. The latest email that I have received says this:

“The impact of the Fire Safety Scandal on leaseholders’ mental health is considerably underestimated”

by the Government.

“From the many messages on Twitter and Facebook, there are millions of devastated lives and souls in the country. Many families and young adults had to live through not just the pandemic during the last 18 months, but also the added anxiety of the unfolding and ever growing Fire Safety Scandal.

It is a triple hit for so many leaseholders: the pandemic, then losing jobs or being furloughed on smaller salaries (with the constant threat of losing their jobs if their employer would go bust) and then the ever increasing costs of the Cladding scandal. This government has totally ignored the cries of its citizens for help.

Knowing that there is a ready solution to the issue in Australia—which could easily be adopted in the UK as well…shows that the Government is simply not interested in fixing the problem for innocent leaseholders. The contempt—with which they treat their citizens—is truly shambolic.”

I received that email from one of my constituents this week, and I think that it reflects the views of hundreds of them.

In opening the debate, the Minister mentioned Ballymore. I am dealing with Ballymore; I have dealt with Ballymore since it first submitted a planning application to build apartment blocks in my constituency. I welcomed the news of developments that would provide homes for local residents, but not a single one of the planning gains that Ballymore promised has been delivered. It went bust, and was then bailed out by the Irish Government.

Subsequently—and since this scandal has hit us—Ballymore initially refused to meet and seriously discuss with residents the problems that they were facing. My constituents demonstrated, so Ballymore is now meeting them and having proper discussions, but it threatened them that if they demonstrated again, it would end the talks. Now it has applied for the building safety fund, but will not give any assurances that it will cover the full costs of what my constituents are facing until it knows what resources from the fund are available to it.

This continuous blackmail—and, indeed, emotional blackmail—of my constituents is simply unacceptable. As the email from my constituent made clear, it is having a direct impact on their mental health. We are facing a pandemic of mental health problems because of the covid crisis, but this adds to it. It requires Government intervention which is serious, which takes responsibility, but which then pursues the developers to ensure that they are held accountable as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Because it is almost Christmas, Jim, we are going to give you a bonus minute. Four minutes! I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher) [V]]

This is the first and I trust the last time that I will have to speak from the virtual Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that self-isolation rules allow me no other option.

I begin by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions to this debate. I know that this is a highly emotive subject, and understandably so. I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), of course for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for their thoughtful contributions.

Mercifully, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his introduction to the debate, the spread of fire in high-rise buildings is rare, and it is becoming more rare, but as he also made clear, it is all too clear what can happen when those responsible for designing, building and managing those buildings fail—tragedies such as Grenfell can happen. That is why it is this Government’s absolute priority to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. The contributions from across the House firmly reiterate just how important it is to pass this Bill to restore confidence—confidence among residents in their own safety and confidence in the wider housing market. Safety is our paramount concern, and I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) of that.

We see this as a landmark Bill. It represents the greatest improvement to building and fire safety in a generation. It is flagship legislation that will spearhead our wider safety programme to ensure the proportionate management of risk in buildings. It will require building owners to manage safety risks to the same high standards as the best do—it will be a system where there are clear safety responsibilities for those responsible for the design, construction, completion and occupation of high-rise buildings, where they must demonstrate that they have effective and proportionate measures in place to meet those responsibilities, and where they are accountable to the regulator and to their residents.

A number of colleagues across the House have made some very important points and, in the short time that I have, I would like to address a number of them. The first is proportionality, which was discussed by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to name three. It is hugely important that we take a proportionate approach to the safety of tall buildings and all buildings. The industry must take note that risk aversion is causing unnecessary financial burdens to homeowners. Remediation works should only ever be undertaken where absolutely necessary. We must not spend taxpayers’ money where it is unnecessary to do so, or ask hard-pressed leaseholders to pay for works that do not need to be done. Our Bill takes a proportionate approach. It rightly focuses on mitigating and managing risk and targeting activity only where action is needed.

The new building safety regulator is being established in the Health and Safety Executive, precisely because of its experience overseeing safety case regimes and its record of delivering robust yet proportionate regulation. The requirements of the Bill will help to ensure that proportionality is embedded in its operations.

Building owners and managers, along with lenders and insurers, need to ensure that they, too, take a proportionate approach to risk in blocks of flats whatever the height. In line with the expert evidence that we have published today, EWS1 forms should not be a requirement on buildings below 18 metres. Lower-rise blocks should not need them, and lenders should not ask for them. The consolidated advice note, which was born out of the need for safety information in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire, will now be retired.

Any concerns that do exist about existing buildings should be addressed primarily through risk management and mitigation. For many thousands of people, the “computer says no” approach to risk and valuation has been hugely unfair and distressing. It must become much more proportionate. That is what our measures are intended to do—to get the market moving again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) called for. I hope that they will also address some of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning).

I want also to assure the House that the Bill in no way absolves the sector from responsibility for paying its way. Indeed, it will place more and greater duties and responsibilities on developers, construction companies, building owners and managers than ever before, embedding the principles of safe design and construction right from a building’s inception. The new regulator will have the skills and resources to pursue those who refuse to meet their responsibilities. We will strengthen criminal penalties throughout the Bill, making offences imprisonable for up to two years, and making directors and managers criminally liable if they decide that their companies should act unlawfully.

Those who can pay must pay. Through the Bill, we will further cement developers’ contributions to the cost of remediation, as well as increase the ability of building owners and leaseholders to seek redress. Specifically, part 3 of the Bill contains a provision to introduce a levy, which will apply to high-rise residential buildings and will be paid by developers. That complements the residential property developer tax that the Chancellor will bring forward. Together, those will contribute more than £2 billion for remediation.

I also want to respond to concerns raised by Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East regarding the right of homeowners to seek redress. The Bill will give millions of homeowners new rights to seek redress for shoddy workmanship, extending the period during which they can claim from six years to 15 years. It will empower building owners, leaseholders and homeowners to take legal action, clamping down on rogue developers and their owners.

I urge all who have fallen victim to shoddy work to use the newly extended liability period to consider whether litigation is right for them and to explore who, or which group of them, can best take action. I trust that the Bill will also encourage developers and freeholders, aware of the new additional rights of their customers, to act responsibly and quickly to deal with concerns before they reach the courts.

As well as redress, the Bill will provide residents with a greater voice. It will strengthen the voice of residents and leaseholders through a statutory residents panel, while a formal complaints process will give residents the confidence to raise issues and escalate them where needed, including to the building safety regulator.

I am conscious that it is nearly 7 o’clock. I am conscious, too, that there will be plenty of opportunity in other debates in the House, in Committee and on Report to debate the Government’s proposals further. So let me conclude by saying that we are leaving no stone unturned in our pursuit of a regime that is both proportionate and comprehensive. We have tested, we have consulted, we have analysed and we have done it all at considerable length, and we have now produced a Bill that I believe we should all support—a Bill that will confront the building safety issues that no Government have dared to tackled before, and a Bill that will force industry to take collective responsibility for the safety defects that they have created and support a change in culture so that residents’ concerns are listened to, problems are identified and dealt with early, and tragedies such as Grenfell never happen again.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and all those who have contributed to the development of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

BUILDING SAFETY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Building Safety Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 26 October 2021.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

BUILDING SAFETY BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

BUILDING SAFETY BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees, charges and levies under or by virtue of the Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will now suspend the House, and suspension will be followed by a statement by Victoria Atkins on the strategy for tackling violence against women and girls.

McVitie’s Tollcross Factory

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It has been several weeks since we learned of the proposal put forward by Pladis, the company behind the McVitie’s biscuit brand, to close its long-standing factory in my Glasgow East constituency. In that time, I have raised the matter at every opportunity, both outside and on the Floor of the House. This evening’s debate, however, gives me much more time to expand on the situation and I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for very graciously allowing me to hold this Adjournment debate. As you can probably understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am currently battling laryngitis, but nothing and no one would hold me back from being in the House to represent my constituents tonight. That said, should my voice give way, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) might want to make the points on my behalf, but let us hope it does not come to that.

Before I begin my speech, I wish to remember Andy Millar, a long-serving employee at the McVitie’s factory in Tollcross who recently died. Andy had worked at the factory for 37 years—his entire adult working life. His dedication and loyalty to McVitie’s was undeniable, and I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. I also want to thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to what I have to say this evening, because this is not just a factory closure—not for me, not for the workers at the factory, nor for my constituents. I will come on to talk more about the history of the Tollcross site, but suffice it to say that having been in operation for almost a century, McVitie’s is firmly embedded in the DNA of the east end of Glasgow.

I recently attended the socially distanced rally in Tollcross Park which was organised by the GMB trade union, where hundreds of McVitie’s employees and their families had gathered to protest against the closure of the factory. One image that stuck in my head was of a young girl holding a handmade sign that read, “Save our mums and dads jobs.” I want to provide the Minister with some context here. For many kids in the area, their household income either comes largely or completely from the factory. I know from speaking with factory staff that there are a large number of households where either the sole breadwinner or both parents work at the factory, and in many instances there will be a huge impact on the extended family network. Employment at the factory is intergenerational and there were kids at that protest who will not only have parents, but aunts, uncles and grandparents all working there simultaneously. That is the crux of the issue.

It is no exaggeration when I say that the closure of the Tollcross McVitie’s factory would be devastating for the local community. I have said before in this Chamber that the closure would be the equivalent of economic Armageddon for the east end, and I truly mean that. With a shared history as rich and vibrant as that of McVitie’s at Tollcross, it would be impossible for the company to turn its back with no consequences.

McVitie’s has become synonymous with Scotland. The UK’s biggest biscuit brand has had a presence in Scotland since 1830, born out of a bakery in Rose Street in Edinburgh. The factory in Tollcross was built almost 100 years later and has operated continually to the present day. I have visited the factory many times. It is a building with an incredible amount of history, which is shared and recounted by the proud workforce. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me colourful stories of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who have worked there. Those generations of families in the east end of Glasgow helped to propel the McVitie’s brand to its contemporary dominance over the domestic biscuit market. A huge part of that success, and the reason why McVitie’s outsells the next seven biggest biscuit brands combined, is because the business is very much a family business. This proposal, however, changes all of that.

The McVitie’s brand stands on the shoulders of its dedicated Tollcross workforce—generations of families past and present—and today’s workforce does not deserve to be abandoned. I do not use that word lightly, but that is exactly what Pladis would be doing: abandoning its loyal employees. Over the past 15 months, the world has been turned upside down, yet throughout the pandemic the Tollcross factory workers continued to serve McVitie’s diligently as key workers. While millions of others worked safely from home, they come into work day in, day out, to keep the UK fed. How are those Tollcross factory employees being rewarded for being key workers during the pandemic and contributing to a “bumper” sales year for McVitie’s? They are being rewarded with the threat of closure and redundancies.

I have already made my feelings abundantly clear to David Murray, the managing director of Pladis UK and Ireland, about how the staff have been treated, but to say that it is a complete kick in the teeth is a huge understatement. The dedication of the workforce at Tollcross helped McVitie’s towards its record high sales throughout 2020, but their dedication has been met with cold and callous thanklessness.

In Pladis’s annual biscuit review, it outlines its successes during 2020. The report highlights that Britain’s biscuit market grew by 7.2% last year, equivalent to an extra £212 million in sales. UK biscuit retail sales were worth £2.96 billion in 2020, and they were bought by 99.5% of all UK households. By way of rationale for the proposed closure, Pladis insists that the UK biscuit market is “mature”, yet in the report Scott Snell, vice-president of customer at Pladis, states:

“as the number one biscuit supplier, since almost a quarter of biscuits purchased (24.6%) are pladis brands, we believe there is yet more growth to be tapped into.”

I therefore do not believe that the rhetoric is matched by reality. The stated reasoning behind axing 468 jobs and the complete abandonment of Scotland is weak to say the least. I can see that, the trade unions can see that and, most importantly, the workers at the Tollcross factory can see that. That is why we are not giving in without a fight.

The local community, employees at the factory, trade unions, local elected representatives, Clyde Gateway, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government have rallied to the cause and are working hard to prevent the closure. I also want to put party and constitutional politics aside and place on record my thanks to the UK Government for working with me and playing their part in the efforts to keep the factory in the east end of Glasgow. Whether it is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Scotland Office—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), on the Treasury Bench tonight—or the Prime Minister himself, I have found a genuine willingness to work constructively together across traditional party and constitutional lines to save these jobs in my constituency. The campaign, though, is fundamentally a grassroots one. A petition organised by workers at the factory is currently sitting at more than 64,100 signatures, and, at this juncture, I wish to pay tribute to Paul Smith who works at the factory.

In addition, on behalf of my Glasgow East constituents, I presented a petition in this Chamber in which I outlined their concerns and the public opposition to the proposed closure. Hundreds of factory workers and their families attended a rally protesting against the factory closure. It was organised by GMB, which has also been working incredibly hard to protect local jobs, as has Unite the Union.

Glasgow City Council passed an emergency motion, which was brought forward by my SNP colleague and Shettleston ward councillor, Laura Doherty. The unanimous passing of this motion gave the full support of all party groups to the leader of the council to take all appropriate steps to assist in preventing the loss of these jobs, and to explore ways to secure a sustainable future for the site.

That motion also allowed for the formation of an action group, chaired by the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, and Councillor Aitken. The group has brought together representatives, officials, trade union representatives and stakeholders to encourage an open dialogue with Pladis ultimately to try to find a solution—any solution—to keep the Tollcross factory open.

Despite this enormous collective effort, last Friday, Pladis officially issued its HR1 notice signalling advance notification of potential redundancies. The 45-day consultation process began on Friday, and, over the weekend, the worst fears of hundreds of families became a reality. At this juncture, may I say that my thoughts are very much with the families and the factory workers who now face an incredibly uncertain time? Far too often, even in this House, we lose sight of the fact that people are worrying about how they will pay their car loan, how they will pay their rent and how they will pay their mortgage. I do not believe that the factory closure is a foregone conclusion, and I will continue to work around the clock to play my part in finding a solution.

I know that David Murray and other senior Pladis executives will be watching this debate intently this evening. Indeed, they spend an absolute fortune on public relations and spin, so, as a result, all the lobbyists will be watching this debate. On behalf of the trade unions and the staff at the factory, I want to say this directly to David Murray and Salmin Amin: “The proposal to close the factory cannot go ahead. It would completely devastate the local area and create an economic scar that would remain for many, many years to come.”

My message to David Murray is clear: “Your staff do not deserve to be treated with contempt. They have been instrumental in your success. Their parents and their grandparents built your business. And, yes, to you, this is business, but to us this is deeply personal. The McVitie’s brand is cherished because of its history, not in spite of it. McVitie’s is as much a part of the east end of Glasgow as we are a part of it. Please work with us. Please engage with the action group. Listen to the reasonable propositions being put forward. Have the good sense to change course and to continue our mutual success.”

There is a genuine and collective will to prevent the factory being shuttered and to protect local jobs. I will continue to play my part and I look forward to the Minister’s response this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I congratulate Mr Linden who is battling laryngitis on completing the speech. His voice was heard loud and clear. Whether that is down to the biscuits, something in the whisky or something in the water, I do not know.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

All of them together.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. I call the Minister.

Planning Decisions: Local Involvement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Of all the problems that my constituents bring to me on a regular basis, it is planning and development that, time and again, possesses some of the greatest difficulties. The Government’s plans to take power from communities and hand them to developers will be nothing short of a disaster for our green spaces. Already, local people have too little control over which developments are built near to them. Communities such as Keresley in my constituency risk being subsumed into the city suburbs by plans that they did not approve and are now fearful of losing much of their unique village identity. Even when comparatively few homes are under construction, those scrutinising plans often lack the powers needed to ensure that new additions are in character with existing homes, with strict enforcement made virtually impossible by loopholes created by Whitehall.

In addition, local councils such as Coventry City Council are being forced to build tens of thousands more homes than residents require and, if they refuse, not only would yet more homes be foisted upon them, but those developments would be unleashed to sprawl outwards with zero control for those most affected locally.

Worse still, new developments often include little decent social housing and too often lack the local public services required to support new homes. Put simply, our planning laws are already widely unbalanced, and it is time that we put local people before the big developers’ profit margins.

As the Government craft their latest changes to planning policies, Ministers must at last take the time to engage with those affected by development—those who feel powerless in the face of mass building projects. When local voices are ignored, the result is the wrong houses built in the wrong places. Instead of lucrative estates constructed by Conservative party donors, Britain needs planning and development rules that listen and respond to local people and local needs. Handing power back to communities and their representatives in local government can unlock a brighter future for how we meet our housing needs. No community can be expected to support a development that it was powerless to shape.

Once, those on the Conservative Benches spoke of a property-owning democracy, yet now they seek to strip away the last few democratic safeguards in our planning system. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of families are left renting poor quality houses for sky-high rents, while others are forced to move away from the only community that they have ever known thanks to development designed to serve only property investors.

The Government are putting the profits of a greedy few ahead of the concerns of thousands whose communities are faced with bulldozers, so I call on Members from all parties to stand up to be counted against the Government’s proposals as they seek to permanently rob communities of the powers to shape their neighbourhoods and their own futures.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin promptly at 7.10, and apologies to the probably 17 Members who will fail to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]]

When it comes to planning, everyone except wealthy landlords gets a raw deal from this Government. Since 2010, the Conservatives have slashed funding for new homes, refused to regulate for higher standards, and given a free hand to commercial property developers. The number of Government-funded homes for social rent has fallen by more than 90%, the number of households stuck renting from a private landlord has risen by more than 1 million, and the number of young people who own a home has fallen by almost 900,000. According to Shelter, even before the pandemic half of all renters were only one pay cheque away from losing their homes, with no savings to fall back on. Since then, the Resolution Foundation has found that renters are 40% more likely to work in places that have been shut down by the coronavirus crisis.

The Conservatives plan to reward their developer donors by selling out communities with a new developers’ charter, which will remove powers from elected local representatives, thus silencing residents and tipping the balance of power further in favour of profit-seeking developers. The Government plan to scrap section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, yet section 106 agreements between developers and local authorities result in almost 50% of all affordable homes for social rent. By scrapping section 106 and the community infrastructure levy altogether, the Government risk abandoning one of the chief engines of affordable living. The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects said that this could

“lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing.”

Rather than making it harder to build homes that are fit for the many, the Government must rapidly increase the construction of council housing and genuinely affordable properties to urgently address the housing crisis. The soaring inequality and exclusion derive from the way land is owned and controlled. The Government make ideological choices to sustain this inequality as a direct attack on the working class.

In my constituency of Leicester East, overcrowding is a huge problem. There are pockets of areas close to Leicester General Hospital with populations of 2,000 living in an area 60,000 square metres in size. That is an average of 32 square metres of space, which is the equivalent of a single box bedroom, without front or back gardens. The UK average is 3,676 square metres of space per person, which is more than a hundred times the amount of space that working-class communities have in my constituency, yet the Government want to downgrade our much-needed and loved local NHS general hospital and sell off its land to property developers.

It is sadly not surprising that this Government act so overwhelmingly in the interests of landowners and landlords when we remember that many of them are in fact landlords themselves, catering for their property developer donors. The Government’s proposal is not about partnership with communities but about a land grab. Housing is a fundamental right, without which it is impossible to build a secure and happy life. The Government must recognise that fact and begin to work in the interests of all UK—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, Claudia. I call James Daly, who is to finish his speech at 10 past seven.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]]

This is a really important debate about the role that local communities play in the planning process. As we have heard from Members from all parties, communities have their own priorities. In Bury, we have a thriving local debate about where we feel housing should be put and the type of housing we need in our area. Organisations such as Bury Folk Keep It Green are at the forefront of the debate. Thousands of my constituents in Bury hold the view that their priority is to protect the green belt, and there is a clear local view that people want their democratically elected politicians to protect it.

Let us look at the Government’s position. The recent response to the Government’s consultation on changes to the current planning system makes it crystal clear that

“meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such”

things as the green belt or countryside. Indeed, in that consultation response the Government go on to say:

“We can plan for well designed, beautiful homes, with access to the right infrastructure in the places where people need and want to live while also protecting the environment and green spaces communities most value.”

Why are we not in that situation in Bury? Why are the Greater Manchester spatial framework and other such documents being railroaded through, destroying the green belt in Walshaw and Tottington and at Elton reservoir? The reason is that my local Labour council will not put a local plan in place. How can planning exist in any way, shape or form when our local Labour council do not have a local plan? It is simply beyond belief that, since 1997, we in Bury have not had a local vision of how our communities should look. I implore Bury Labour: please, put a local plan in place that protects our green belt, rather than subcontracting the responsibility—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, James, but it is 10 past 7 and we have to start the wind-ups. At least you got in.

Land Banking

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before the debate starts, can I ask for the Dispatch Box on the Government side to be sanitised while Christian is speaking? I know the Minister is used to not touching it until it is fully sanitised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I will not give way to my hon. Friend, because I have not got very long left and I appreciate he has only just arrived in the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will continue.

Additionally, we have made available £400 million in brownfield housing funding, which has been allocated to seven mayoral combined authorities, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South, enabling around 26,000 new homes across the region—brownfield site homes. He asked me what we can do to encourage Mayor Burnham to build the right homes in the right places in the right way. I point him to the investment we are making in the combined authority in Manchester to ensure we are unlocking the opportunity to build homes on brownfield sites and not greenfield or green-belt sites, which people understandably want to see preserved.

My hon. Friend has spoken passionately and eloquently in support of his constituents in this, his very first Adjournment debate. I congratulate him again on securing it and being such a champion for his constituents. I hope it is clear to him and to others that the Government are committed to delivering a planning system that is fit for purpose and that works for everyone.

The Gracious Speech announced that the Government will bring forward a planning Bill in the current Session of Parliament. We are working hard with our stakeholders, and with colleagues across the House and in the other place, to make sure that we get the Bill right. We want to hear people’s views. We want to ensure that we refine our proposals in such a way that we introduce legislation that works for everyone in our country and provides the right homes that the country needs. It will be a Bill that gets more infrastructure built, that will modernise the planning system and that will bring the entire system—more democratic, more engaging—into the 21st century. It will propose simpler and faster processes, giving communities and developers much more certainty over what development goes where, what it looks like and what the infrastructure should be, and ensuring that developers have to contribute their fair share to funding affordable homes.

Our reforms will empower local people to set standards for beauty and design in their area through design codes that put beauty at the heart of our system. We want to grow the supply, boost affordability and unlock opportunity, and to do so for every community in every region in our United Kingdom. I am very pleased to be able to say those words and to commend my hon. Friend for his debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the technical and broadcasting teams for ensuring that all Members of Parliament have been able to participate in our democracy, whether they are in this iconic Chamber or not.

Question put and agreed to.

Transit Site: Walsall

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(David T.C. Davies.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the permission of Valerie Vaz, could we have the Government Dispatch Box cover cleaned while Valerie Vaz is on her feet, and the Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box until then?

Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Seventh Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding remediation—follow-up, HC 1249; Fifth Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, HC 466; Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding: progress of remediation, HC 172, and the Government Response, CP 281; Twelfth Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2017-19, Leasehold Reform, HC 1468, and the Government Response, CP 99; and Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 9 November, and 23 November and 7 December 2020, on the future of the planning system in England, HC 858.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I have selected amendment (h) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I very much agree, and when I made some of those points earlier, it was met with silence from Government Members.

In conclusion, the dream of having a secure, safe and affordable home is a powerful one, and rightly so. Housing is much more than an investment or a commodity. Homes are the places we grow up in, the places we grow old in. How safe and secure they are shapes who we are—the opportunities we can take, the freedoms we have, the successes and happiness we share—but for too many in this country after 11 years of a Conservative Government that has become a pipe dream. The Government’s market-driven ethos just will not create the homes we need, and for people trapped in buildings with dangerous cladding that dream has become twisted and has become a waking nightmare. Today we can start to fix that at least, and I hope Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting our amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members that while their contributions should address the terms of the amendment, it is in order to refer also to other matters relevant to the Gracious Speech. To begin with there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but I suspect that may be shortened later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to participate in today’s session of the Queen’s Speech debate on the theme of safe and affordable housing for all, which I will come to in just a moment.

It has to be said that the Government’s plan outlined last week was a bit of a damp squib. In terms of the challenges faced by our constituents, it was pretty much a non-event; indeed, it contained proposals that caused some alarm. There was nothing about using the levers that this Parliament has, which devolved Governments do not have, to tackle issues such as child poverty or even commit to the modest ask to retain the £20 per week universal credit uplift. In contrast, the Scottish Government are using their limited powers to double the Scottish child payment to tackle child poverty. Plans for social care seem to have come to naught, while the Scottish Government seek to establish a national care service for Scotland.

Despite all the hand-wringing from this Government, there was no action on fire and rehire, as set out in the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). While the UK Government continue to throw their hands in the air over this very serious issue, the Scottish Government will review the Fair Work First criteria for contracts and Government support grants to include specific references to fire and rehire tactics, and we will continue to press for employment law to be devolved to Scotland’s Parliament, where it rightfully belongs.

Moreover, the absence of an employment Bill is very disappointing, not least because it means that the Government have decided to do nothing about exploitative unpaid work trials, just as they refused to back the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). In addition, I and others in this place had some hope for the inclusion of statutory paid bereavement leave for all—an idea whose time has come as we work towards a post-pandemic world, reminding us of all the crushing loss that grief can inflict on us, which, as a society, we would do well to give better recognition to. We had hoped that that could be put on a legislative basis.

All those hopes to improve the lives of hard-working people across the UK have been dashed in this rather empty programme for government—and all of this is before we come to the fact that the Government’s programme is set to deregulate and privatise wherever it can. The procurement Bill, which will seek to privatise Scotland’s NHS not by the back door but increasingly by the front door, is an act of legislative aggression against the express wishes of the people of Scotland, all taking place in the teeth of amendments to the Trade Bill put forward by the SNP to protect Scotland’s NHS. We continue to see the narrative of the democratic outrage committed against Scotland that was started by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Then we come to the so-called electoral integrity Bill for compulsory ID by 2023, which will suppress voter participation, and I fear that that may be the intention. Indeed, without my parliamentary pass, I, too, would be excluded from participating in voting for elections, alongside 3.5 million other citizens. It seems that maintaining electoral integrity demands that a huge number of voters be excluded from voting.

I suppose it is easier to speak of integrity by crushing the suffrage of those who do not have photo ID and, coincidentally, may be less likely to vote Tory than it is to do anything meaningful to tackle the murky world of political lobbying, as set out in a Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). If there is a desire to protect the integrity of our politics, would that not be a better place to start? Nor are there any measures to deal with dark money, which is yet another very real danger to electoral integrity. Folk will no doubt wish to speculate as to why nothing is being done to properly tackle those issues. It would be laughable if it were not so very serious and dangerous to our democratic system.

I wish to turn to the theme of safe and affordable housing for all. Housing and local government are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government require buildings to be constructed in ways that better withstand fires and actively prevent their spread. That explains why Scotland has only a handful of buildings with Grenfell-type cladding, whereas that is a much more widespread problem across England. We, in Scotland, can look forward to a single building assessment programme. It is soon to be launched and will be carrying out safety assessments on all properties with external cladding, so that the scale of the funding needed for the necessary remedial work can be identified. There will be no “first come, first served” approach to building safety in Scotland. Funding needs to begin with an understanding of need.

Although the Building Safety Bill applies only to England, part 5 contains applications to Scotland where a new homes ombudsman is to be created for the whole UK, and paragraph 8 of schedule 1 amends the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Therefore, this Bill must not be pushed through unless and until the necessary legislative consent is secured from the Scottish Government. A very important principle of devolution is at stake. The people of Scotland elect MSPs to govern in devolved areas. This UK Government have no business or remit to encroach on those areas, so they must engage in dialogue—constructive dialogue—with those elected to represent the people of Scotland in devolved matters if they wish to secure legislative consent. It is understood that the regulation of construction products is a reserved matter, but it is essential that Scottish Ministers are consulted about such regulations before decisions are made, as they will have an impact on Scottish developers, builders and homeowners, and could also interfere with the Scottish Parliament’s freedom to legislate on devolved matters. So a legislative consent motion should be sought in that case, too. By the same token, appointments to the Health and Safety Executive amending the 1974 Act should not just require Scottish Ministers to be consulted; their agreement should be required for such appointments.

As well as being safe, homes must be affordable. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government have provided about 100,000 new affordable homes since 2007, but we clearly need to go further. The Scottish Government are planning for another 100,000 new affordable homes. In order to help first-time buyers to get on the property ladder, the Scottish National party’s Scottish home fund helps to boost the finances of those seeking to purchase a property. This shared equity pilot scheme provides first-time buyers with up to £25,000 to help them buy a property that meets their needs, located in an area where they want to live. So far, the investment has been £240 million in this fund and it expected to support more than 11,000 households to buy their first home. So far, so good, but it is deeply disappointing that the total Scottish Government financial transaction budget in 2021-22 was cut by almost two thirds as a result of the UK Government’s spending review in November.

As for the planning Bill in England, such a Bill will not of itself magically build homes, as the Secretary of State knows. We know—and we have heard it mentioned by somebody else in the Chamber—that 1 million homes in England have approval but have not yet been built. Government investment and political will is also necessary to deliver affordable homes, which are so desperately needed. The Secretary of State may wish to look closely, as he will find it instructive, at the Scottish Government work done in this area, which has already delivered 100,000 new affordable homes—the other 100,000 are to be delivered by 2032. The fact is that despite the claims made by the Secretary of State today, the UK Government are playing catch-up on house building—I do not think there is any dispute about that. I remind him why I have made that comment about playing catch-up. He will recall that in 2015 the incoming Tory Government promised to build 200,000 new starter homes. Not a single one has been delivered. That is a terrible record, almost as bad as—actually, a little bit worse than—that of the Labour-Lib Dem Government in Scotland between 2003 and 2007, who built merely six houses. The broken promise of the UK incoming Government of 2015 makes those six houses look like a titanic effort—not an easy thing to do.

In the course of the new Parliament, the Scottish Government will put £1.6 billion into decarbonising how buildings are heated. Ambitiously, that equates to one third of all homes by 2030—a very important step in tackling climate change, since heating homes is a significant contributor to our emissions. Sadly, the UK Government are investing only one third of what has been invested in Scotland to decarbonise homes, which means that they are unlikely to meet their own targets to decarbonise homes by 2050.

I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the importance of increasing the supply of affordable housing. We have seen how urgent it is, and we know that it will improve the lives of the people across England who his Government represent in housing, who have suffered cramped, overcrowded conditions—conditions in which I myself grew up. Overcrowding fractures family relationships and has a hugely damaging impact on children as their development, schoolwork and self-esteem suffers. As we emerge from this pandemic, we know that so many people suffer these intolerable conditions under the strained relationships that lockdown has foisted on many of us.

What of supporting people to stay in their homes? We have seen from this Government repeated missed opportunities to cover the average cost of rents and ensure that people are supported to stay in their homes not just during the covid crisis, but beyond. The decision to maintain local housing rates in cash terms in 2021-22 represents a return to a freeze for renters. According to the Resolution Foundation, that means that 450,000 households have fallen into rent arrears since last January because of the covid pandemic. How will freeze local housing allowance rates help those families? It will not. It will disproportionately hurt them and further exacerbate the already deep financial difficulties that they face. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that.

We know that restoring local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile has a positive impact on homelessness and poverty, as well as wider economic and social benefits, but the Scottish Government are finding that UK budget decisions have an adverse impact on their work to support those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, since they are priced out of private sector tenancies. We also know that the temporary restoration of housing allowance rates facilitated moves out of temporary accommodation, which is something that we should all want to see. Does the Secretary of State believe that the positive benefits of restoring local housing allowance rates, with all the positive impacts that that can have on homelessness, are worth saving—or are those at risk of homelessness worth sacrificing? If so, why? What price social cohesion?

All this is before we even mention the ongoing, the continuing, the dreaded, the hated Tory bedroom tax. Of course, the tax has been fully mitigated in Scotland, with the Scottish Government spending £71 million in 2021-22 to do so because we do not have the powers to abolish it, although we are often told that we have a powerhouse Parliament. This cruel and punishing policy, imposed on Scotland by a Government rejected by the people of Scotland, has meant that the discretionary housing payment spend in Scotland is estimated at approximately £82 million. We are safeguarding tenancies and working hard to prevent homelessness, doing all we can with the limited powers that we have to mop up the damage wreaked on Scotland by this Government. While they impose this cruel and damaging policy on the people of Scotland, the mopping up is increasingly difficult, with 85% of welfare powers still reserved to this Parliament. We have a job on our hands as we continue to try to help struggling families to meet the cost imposed on them.

Keeping people in their homes—sustaining tenancies—matters because the best way to tackle homelessness is to prevent homelessness in the first place. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that and on the fact that cutting local housing allowance rates and the bedroom tax, and preventing homelessness through the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, becomes much more difficult alongside these policies. Short-sighted welfare policies force people into unmanageable financial hardship and can lead to a spiral of difficulties, leading them to lose their home.

The Government’s programme lacks ambition and substance; vitally, it does not command the support of the people of Scotland, who have repeatedly rejected this Government at the ballot box. Indeed, last week they could only muster a feeble 21% on the constituency vote. The people of Scotland favour progressive politics and progressive policies that put people first, seek to be inclusive, and offer support to those who need it when they need it in order to build a fairer and more compassionate country. Governing our own affairs, we could do so much more for the people of Scotland, and increasingly the people of Scotland are persuaded of that argument.

Self-government, of course, is not controversial. It is only controversial, uniquely, when we talk about Scotland. No country can be better governed than by the people who live and work there. That is why, when we have our opportunity to put Scotland’s future back in the hands of the people of Scotland—as we will as we emerge from the pandemic—the answer will be a resounding rejection of the values of this Tory Government and of the values of this Parliament, so that Scotland’s future is back in the hands of the people of Scotland and the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. We will then no longer need to tolerate Tory attempts at voter suppression, failure to deal with cronyism, dark money and lobbying shenanigans. We reject those things in the name of the people of Scotland.

I wish I could say something more positive about the programme for government presented today, last week and the rest of this week, but, sadly, I fear that there is nothing to say.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As we are moving to the five-minute time limit, I remind everybody contributing from a remote location that they should have a visible timer at the bottom right of their device. If they do not, I ask them please to get a timer because there is a lot of pressure on time today. We do not intend to be rude, but Members will be cut off if they go beyond whatever the time limit happens to be.

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are going to have Andrew Selous on the videolink. While you are speaking, Andrew, if you do not mind, we will be sanitising the Government Dispatch Box, and I know Mr Scully has been under strict orders not to go anywhere near it until it has been properly sanitised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.

We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.

I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.

Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.

The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.

But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.

Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.

It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.

We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.

We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.

My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.

My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Minister; that is much appreciated and I will ensure that that message gets passed on to the Speaker and the others in the team.

Question put and agreed to.

Liverpool City Council

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has just made and for the way in which we have worked together over recent months? He has been most helpful and constructive, and I hope that can continue. I thank him on behalf of the Government for the remarks he has made with respect to the Labour party and the Labour group on Liverpool City Council, which are extremely welcome. The step we have taken today is unusual, and it is better to do it in a cross-party way. We all share the same interests, which are the delivery of public services, ensuring that the people of Liverpool get the value for money and the council that they deserve, and ensuring that the city can attract the inward investment, regeneration and good-quality development that it certainly needs and that we want to see delivered as we come out of the pandemic.

The hon. Gentleman was right—I thank him again—to highlight the praise for the chief executive, Tony Reeves, who has done an outstanding job. In my remarks earlier, I praised his conduct and that of the other statutory officers at the council. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this report focuses on particular functions of Liverpool City Council and does not comment on the wider delivery of public services in the city by the council. There is no reason to question the delivery of adult services, children’s services or other important functions that people in the city rely on. He is also right to praise the work of many people in Liverpool, including within the city council, in their response to the covid-19 pandemic.

I would underline my remarks once again that this is a report about Liverpool City Council. It is not about the neighbouring councils across Merseyside, and neither is it any reflection on the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, to whom I extend my thanks once again for his co-operation and support. It is right that we take this action, and I hope that we can continue to work together on it. None of us does this lightly. Localism is our objective, but localism does require local accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny, and that I hope is what we can now achieve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would just like to say before I call any other Members that, although a number of individuals are under investigation, I understand that there have been no charges. There is therefore no sub judice involved, but I would caution Members not to compromise any of the ongoing investigations in anything they may or may not say.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and welcome the steps he has outlined in relation to Liverpool City Council. I welcome the steps he is taking to preserve the good name of local government, too. I regularly hear from constituents with concerns about the level of commercial activity that councils are now undertaking. Does he agree with me that some of the transactions are incredibly complicated and well beyond what councils would have traditionally been involved in, and that external audit and public scrutiny need to be reviewed and greatly improved to protect taxpayers’ interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not believe that was looked at as part of this investigation. The highways function of Liverpool City Council was investigated by Mr Caller. He has made some remarks on some of its processes and contracts that have been entered into with regard to that function, but I do not believe that he has looked at the broader transport network across the Liverpool city region or made any comment one way or another on that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now go by video link—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I was not expecting that link. I was expecting Tim Farron, but you are clearly not Tim Farron! It has been switched again. I call Wera Hobhouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I hope that, given the remarks the hon. Lady has just made, she is supporting the report that Max Caller has produced and our proposed intervention, and that the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool City Council will make similar comments to those made on behalf of the Labour group on the council by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). The report concludes that the issues faced by the city council are much greater than one individual and much wider than simply the role of elected Mayor, so I do not think it would be correct to say that this issue emanates from the decision to have an elected Mayor. However, the hon. Lady is correct to say that that creates a degree of concentration of power, which means that accountability and scrutiny are all the more important. I very much hope that that will be corrected as a result of the work to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are keeping me on my toes, Wera. Well done.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

I am shocked by the findings that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today and I assure him that I will read the report extremely carefully once it is published. Does he agree that the priority now must be to protect Liverpool council tax payers’ money and the services the people of Liverpool rely on? Does he also agree that it is in the public interest to put in place effective procedures for obtaining best value in all that the council does going forward? Given that the council is to pay the costs of the interventions, as he has set out, is there an opportunity, if swift improvement is made, for the intervention to be shorter than the three years he has set out today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give further thought to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I agree that it would be better for councils to move to all-out elections, and—unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary—it would be better if councillors were elected in single-member wards. Max Caller’s report clearly makes that recommendation for Liverpool, and he had made that recommendation in the past, having witnessed dysfunctional councils with poor scrutiny and accountability in other parts of the country. It seems to be a thread running through those councils that have got into extreme difficulties. That is something we should reflect on, and I will refer to it in due course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 20 questions. We will now suspend the House for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.

Sitting suspended.

Bill presented

Coronavirus (No.2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dawn Butler, Rebecca Long Bailey, Clive Lewis, Caroline Lucas, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Layla Moran, Geraint Davies and Lloyd Russell-Moyle presented a Bill to make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 279).

Fire Safety Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The plight of people in shared ownership properties is dire and needs to be looked at by the Government, as does the plight of the many thousands of people who are still trapped in unsafe buildings or buildings they cannot sell, who face extortionate bills for remediation work or who face huge increases in insurance and waking watch costs and other costs that they simply cannot afford. People are going bankrupt.

We cannot feel it in this place, but every time we have a debate or a vote on this issue, thousands of people write to all of us and say, “We are hoping against hope that you do the right thing this time.” We have people writing with heartfelt pleas. Their stories are stark, and every time we have this conversation, people’s hopes are raised, and there is a groundswell on social media and in our inboxes of people saying, “Maybe now the Government are going to do the right thing.” They are watching us now, hoping that we are going to do the right thing. It is very sad that the Government are indicating at the moment that they are not going to take this issue seriously.

This is taking a heavy toll on people’s mental health and putting millions of lives on hold. Leaseholders have been trapped in this impossible position for too long. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have continually campaigned on this issue, and we welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans. Like Labour’s previous amendments and those tabled by Members on both sides of the House, this amendment would prohibit the cost of replacing unsafe cladding being passed on to leaseholders or tenants.

In February, the Housing Secretary told thousands of people across the country that they will be locked into years of debt to fix fire safety problems that were not their fault, and we hear that the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Bishop of St Albans’s amendment. That is a direct and deliberate betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders should not be left to foot the bill. Over the weekend, I wrote to Members of Parliament across the House who have constituents affected by this, urging them to back the amendment, and I sincerely hope that together we will stand up for the rights of leaseholders today and all Members will do the right thing. Given the risk of fire and looming bankruptcy, we cannot wait while the Government delay with inaction and failed proposals to keep leaseholders out of debt.

Today is another chance for the Government finally to put public safety first and to bring forward legislation to protect leaseholders from the deeply unfair situation of paying for fire safety repairs for which they are not responsible. Members across this House are united on this issue and are determined that innocent leaseholders should not foot the bill. Today should be the day when people across the country can go to sleep with a great sense of relief that the Government have listened and put into law protections for leaseholders, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will change his mind. It is not too late for the Government to do the right thing and protect innocent leaseholders across the country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A three-minute limit is being imposed now on all contributions. Apologies to those Members who are on the call list and simply will not get in because there will not be enough time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

I will be supporting the amendment moved by the Bishop of St Albans, because in circumstances where leaseholders are beset by worry, fear and uncertainty, it will provide them with the reassurance that they will not have to pay to fix a problem for which they are not responsible. It will also make the Government realise that they have to come forward with a different solution.

There are two problems here: the first is dangerous cladding and the second is other fire safety defects, which have been discovered in building after building. The Government appear to be in the position where the funding they have announced will pay for the remediation of missing fire cavity barriers where they are integral to the replacement of dangerous cladding, but not where they are not—in other words, where they are elsewhere in the building. I do not really understand that. Can the Minister say whether, if the works the Government are prepared to fund through the scheme are completed, the buildings in question will be declared safe so that the waking watch and insurance costs disappear even if the other fire safety defects have not been fixed?

Time, however, is not on our side, because we know how long making all of these homes safe is going to take, even if all the necessary funding had already been identified.

There are detailed inspections to be done, tenders have to be put together, firms found who are willing to do the work, and scaffolding and building materials have to be ordered before the work can even begin. So, given the scale of this, it is going to take a long time. But that is the one thing that leaseholders do not have, because, as we have heard, they are paying bills that they cannot afford.

Even worse, the bills are now starting to arrive on their doormats demanding payment to fix the cladding. One recent example was a demand for £71,000. It might as well be for £1 million, because there is no prospect of leaseholders being able to find that kind of money.

So the longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see leaseholders becoming bankrupt. What are the local authorities going to do when they turn up at their door and say, “I’m homeless; I need somewhere to stay”? And make no mistake: the anger that leaseholders are feeling at the moment will be something else again when they find themselves being made homeless through no fault of their own.

So, let us do the right thing today to protect leaseholders, and then the Government can turn their attention to finding an answer that will actually work. At a time when people are getting bills to the tune, as I have just said, of £71,000 through the letterbox, to stand up and say, “I’m really sorry, but this isn’t the right legislation” demonstrates a failure to understand the nightmare that so many of the people we represent are living through.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Minister to wind-up the debate at five to 9.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

First, may I put on record my thanks to the Lord Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of London, without whom this amendment would not be back here tonight?

Not to try to outdo the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in my hand this evening I have an invoice. It is an invoice for service charges and remediation of fire safety defects; it is an invoice for nearly £79,000. Imagine for one moment you are trapped in a flat you have been told is unsafe. Night after night you go to bed with the fear of fire. You cannot sell your flat because it is worthless. Everyone knows that none of this is your fault, but then an envelope drops through your letterbox. When you open it, there is a bill for £78,000 to put defects right that are not of your making.

I am asking Members across the House to vote tonight to agree to the Bishop of St Albans amendment—better, or formerly, known as the McPartland-Smith amendment to the Fire Safety Bill. I am asking them to vote with us tonight because bills like this one have already started to arrive and they are not going to stop. Everyone knows what is happening, and if they do not they should open their emails and read the heartbreaking experiences of their constituents. This is not politics; it is not ideology—in fact I do not know what it is, but is it any wonder that some leaseholders feel that there is some sort of a conspiracy against them?

Are we going to let the innocent continue to pick up the tab for the guilty? What are we doing about the developers, the contractors and the manufacturers? What are we doing about the insurers and the National House Building Council? What are we doing about local authority development control and others that signed off these buildings as safe? Are they sleeping soundly in their beds tonight?

There is an economic reason for voting for the amendment, and there is a political reason for voting for it, but beyond that there is a moral reason. If this Bill becomes law, we will be abandoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and I am not going to have that on my conscience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

After the previous debate, I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity to sit down and look at an amendment that might work, in concert with the Government.

The other difficulty with the amendment is that it would put the onus back on a building’s freeholders. Many people would say that that is fine—that it is better than the leaseholders having that responsibility—but I do not think it would put the leaseholders in a better situation, because the freeholder would simply close down the company and hand back the responsibility, which would fall back on to the leaseholders. I simply do not think the amendment works.

I have a couple of general comments. I was a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee at the time of the Grenfell tragedy, and the first thing for which we campaigned—straightaway, like many Members in this House—was a complete ban on combustible cladding. That is exactly what the Government stepped in to do. Of course, that ban is prospective, and it left a retrospective issue. The Government have clearly stepped in on the retrospective issue of cladding on high-risk buildings, which is exactly what the Select Committee campaigned for—those 1,700 high-risk buildings that were over 18 metres. That is what the £5 billion of funding remediates.

Many people in this debate have asked about the other elements, such as the missing fire breaks. It is of course absolutely right that we cannot expect leaseholders to take on a debt of tens of thousands of pounds; that is simply not right. We need to take a risk-based approach to the issue. Lots of buildings, particularly lower-rise buildings, can be safely remediated without necessarily replacing cladding: sprinklers, fire alarms and other systems can make those buildings just as safe.

We need to form a coalition of people right across the sector—be it building owners, contractors, managers or manufacturers—to find the best risk-based solution to the problem while minimising the cost for anybody, not least leaseholders. Of course developers should pay, and in many cases they have—Persimmon has just put £70 million to one side to remediate some of its buildings—but the difficulty is that we are often trying to deal with developers that are no longer there. The levy that the Government have introduced is absolutely the right solution, and I urge them to extend it to materials manufacturers and in particular insulation manufacturers, which I feel are principally responsible for the scandal of the situation in which we find ourselves.

On leaseholders, we of course do not want to see anybody go bankrupt as a result of these costs. There is a cap on costs for lower-rise buildings; it may well be that there should be a cap on the costs of remediating these issues for any leaseholder in any building. We should look into that, along with the possibility of the Government top-slicing the risk to make the insurance costs much lower. There are solutions and we all need to work together to provide them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Sir Robert Neill, who must resume his seat at 8.55 pm or before.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and his expertise in this policy area. I accept that the amendment is not at all perfect, but it is the only thing that is currently available to keep the issue in play, which is why, unfortunately, I cannot support the Government tonight. I had hoped we would have a solution by now.

The simple point is that whoever is at fault—there may be a number of them as this has happened over a period of time—the people who are not at fault are the leaseholders who bought in good faith. They relied on surveys and regulations that appeared to suggest that their properties were in order and had no reason to think otherwise. It therefore cannot be right that they are out of pocket, regardless of the height of the building. I quite understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for using 18 metres as a threshold of risk for prioritising work, but it has no relevance to responsibility, moral or otherwise, so it is an arbitrary cut-off point.

I had hoped that Ministers would have taken the opportunity between the previous debate and this one to come up with a further scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is trying to do the right thing and has put a great deal of money into the matter, to continue to think again and work urgently on this matter because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, time is pressing. The only people who do not have the cash flow are the leaseholders. By all means go after those at fault, be they builders, developers or contractors, but in the meantime we cannot leave leaseholders, who have done nothing wrong, facing bankruptcy because they are effectively in negative equity and are having to fork out for a significant amount of costs, as are my constituents at Northpoint in Bromley.

This is destroying people’s lives. None of us wants to do that and I know that the Government do not want to do that. To find a solution, we have to cover the costs for those people who are not in a position to fund these costs over the length of time between this Bill imposing a liability on them and the Building Safety Bill coming along perhaps 18 months—12 months at best—down the track. It is covering that gap that needs to be done. That gap has to be covered in a way that treats and protects all leaseholders equitably regardless of the height of the building. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of this going back to the other House to think again and urgently to crystallise a solution that we can all join around. The intentions are the same across the House, but we must have something that does not leave leaseholders—those who are not at fault—exposed. It is not a question of caveat emptor. They relied on professional advice and assurances. They are not the ones at fault. Be it loan or grant, either way they should not be picking up the tab for something that was not, ultimately, their responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

We will now suspend for three minutes.