Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Lucas

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the way she presented the Government’s approach to these over 100 amendments— on heaven knows how many pages, if one tries to read through them. I also congratulate the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on martialling the points and presenting them in a way that the House can understand. In particular, I join him in saying to the Government that Lord Crisp’s proposals have much that should be incorporated.

Amendment 327, which would be inserted before schedule 7, talks about houses designed

“to provide year-round thermal comfort for inhabitants”;

to have reduced opportunities for the “risk of crime”; to be free, as far as possible,

“from adverse and intrusive noise and light pollution”;

and to ensure that

“living areas and bedrooms…have access to natural light”.

The amendment addresses a whole series of issues that did not get as much attention as they should have done. When developers are able to convert office blocks into homes, some of those homes are, frankly, substandard.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I very much agree with the point that the Father of the House has just made. Does he agree that healthy homes should incorporate the idea of green space and more equitable access to good-quality green space within reach of those homes, as set out in the Lords amendment? We know about the improvements to physical and mental health that can come as a result of access to green space.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Lady reminds me that I meant to say that when Dr Christopher Addison became the first Minister for Health in 1919, the first action he took was to help build social housing on a scale that would allow people’s health to be improved by living in far better environments, inside and outside their homes.

Yesterday, in levelling-up questions, the Secretary of State very kindly spoke clearly about the approach to the development at Lansdowne Nursery, on the A259 in my constituency, and the threat to Chatsmore Farm, in what is known locally as the Goring gap.

It is important that the words that the Secretary of State spoke yesterday should be passed on to planning inspectors, including the one in Arundel today, who is considering the appeal against the properly justified refusal of planning permission to put homes on the Lansdowne Nursery site.

I invite Ministers from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come to my constituency—and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—to see how every bit of grass is under threat from opportunist developers.

Those developers have rightly been turned down by local authorities—boroughs and districts. They should be supported by planning inspectors, not at risk of what I would call “a rogue decision” by someone from Bristol.

Turning to amendment 22, after clause 70, the Government are wrong to ban parish councils from meeting remotely if they want to. Some parish councils cover a large area and many elderly people kindly serve on them. If they want to have a valid meeting, why can they not tune in, if they are ill, remote or for some other reason? It seems to me to be totally unnecessary for central Government to say to local councils, especially parish councils, “You cannot do that.” I hope that the Government will think again, if not in this Bill then in another one. Let people have autonomy and a degree of sovereignty. If their powers are limited, then how they use them should be up to them, in my view.

In amendments 242 and 243, Lord Young of Cookham has helped qualifying and non-qualifying residential leaseholders. I accept that the Government proposals are limited to residential leaseholders and do not cover commercial leaseholders.

What the House should not accept, and where the Government should think again, is why there has to be a distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. Many non-qualifying leaseholders have homes on which they cannot get a mortgage or sell, and on which they cannot avoid paying high annual costs, as well as remediation costs.

I repeat the question put by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, about what happens to people who have paid but who will now not qualify. Will the Minister give clear advice when she winds up, or in a later statement, on what happens to leaseholders facing claims for payment that they think they should not have to pay? Can people get out of this dilemma, which is caused by too many people in Government not understanding the legal status of residential leaseholders?

I do not believe that Dame Judith Hackitt understood it when she put forward her fire safety proposals, and I do not think the Government understood in the early days. Now that they do understand, will they please remove the distinction? The idea that if people live in homes below 11 metres they are not facing an un-mortgageable and unsellable home is wrong. Many people who have leasehold homes under that level are frankly in a dilemma that Government ought to be able to resolve.

I could go on for longer, but many other Members wish to speak. I congratulate those who have helped to improve the Bill. There are many elements that I support—the Government can take that for granted—but on issues where they are allowing injustice or ineffective approaches to continue, let us change that.

Let us be on the side of the 5 million to 6 million residential leaseholders whom we have ignored for too long, whose situation has been understood poorly. Now that it is understood better, we ought to allow them to have better, healthier, happier and more financially secure lives.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I have to start by saying that it is truly shocking that Government Members do not seem to think that this debate is worth taking part in. The staggering hypocrisy of MPs—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that listening is taking part in a debate? We do not have to speak to learn.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I find that shaming.

One of the reasons to be active in public service is to identify injustice and to work against it. It might take months, years or decades, but this is a fight for which I would like to see more support from the Opposition and from those on my own side. My hon. Friend has mentioned Jim Tilley. I want to mention John Markham, the director of public affairs for the International Consortium of British Pensioners, who is based in Toronto, in Canada. He has pointed out:

“Approximately 10% of all pensioners live abroad, roughly 1 million people. Of that million, 50% receive annual increases to their state pension, and the other 50% do not, solely based on country of residence.”

That arbitrary, historical decision is unjustifiable.

I am not going to quote back to the Minister what he said about this before he became a Minister. Some people have to go through that embarrassment, but I do not want to subject him to it. I will say, however, as we approach Remembrance Sunday and Armistice day, that the countries in which we have shared war memorials are those most likely to be affected. They are the countries whose people served in the former British empire and Commonwealth armies, and those people are the ones who are not getting the increase.

John Markham goes on to say:

“The recent select Committee on the new single tier Pension Bill declared it to be an anomaly that should be fixed.”

I have mentioned the Oxford Economics report. The Department for Work and Pensions might say that that was just a small survey, and that the benefits would take years to accrue. Well, the sooner we start, the better. The argument for doing it is not that it will pay this country, but that it is right.

I could go through the other arguments used by Julian Ridsdale, but there is restricted time for the debate, and it would be interesting to hear what the Labour Front-Bench team has to say. I know, too, that others wish to speak on this issue and to other amendments in the group. Let me declare the best judgment at the end of this debate. We will say no to clause 20, but we will not force a walk-through Division. That is a way of illustrating what we feel, without unduly taking up the House’s time, when Third Reading is also ahead of us. I hope the House will understand that.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has spoken passionately about the importance of fairness and justice. I believe that those very same principles underlie the issue I want to raise this afternoon. I want to speak to my new clause 6, while confirming my support for new clause 8. Those new clauses both relate to the group of women who will not qualify for the single-tier pension, whereas men with the same date of birth will.

One of my constituents, Catherine Kirby, has been a passionate and tireless champion for women in her position. Understandably, she feels that she and others in her situation are faced with a dual disadvantage of being subject to an increase in the state pension age under the 1995 Act, while being denied eligibility for the single-tier pension. Not all, but some of these women will be left with a lower weekly state pension compared with men of the same age. No wonder my constituent, like many others, believes this creates unnecessary and unjustifiable inequality and discrimination.

The Minister has said in the past that women in the position of my constituent should defer, but for those on low incomes who are unable to work and do not have a convenient pot of money, that is not an option. He has explained in the past that because the new system excludes additional benefits such as for bereavement, it is not possible for the Government to tell women what would be best for them. For some women, however, that is simply not relevant to their situation. They already know that they would be better off—by £15 a week, in Catherine’s case, which is significant.

The Minister has said that, over a lifetime, most of these women would get more than the average man with the same date of birth, but theoretical lifetime averages are simply irrelevant to the difficult financial situation faced by my constituents and others in the real world. It is their weekly pension income that matters, and I believe that that is what should occupy our attention as their representatives.

I will support Labour’s new clause 8, which calls for a review of whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new pension arrangements. That is not my preferred option, however. Not all will definitely lose out, and I do not think we necessarily need a review to find a solution that works for the relatively small but important number of women who may lose out.

My new clause 6 simply gives these women the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system set out in part 1 from its introduction in April 2016, if they judge it to be in their best interest to do so. It would not require the Government to tell them what to do, merely to ensure that information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women to make a comparison of total weekly income. The responsibility for making a choice would rest fully with the individual.

I believe this group of women deserve a much better deal, and if that means upgrading to the single tier, that should be permitted. If the Government do not do that, it will be an example of blatant discrimination. It would not be difficult to remedy the situation and it would make a huge difference to the women involved. This group of women certainly deserve better. They are the generation who campaigned for equality for women. They began their working lives being discriminated against; the Government can and should give them the right to be included in a new single-tier pension to ensure that they do not end their lives feeling discriminated against, as well.