Houses in Multiple Occupation: Approval

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Henry]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and, yes, I do agree with her. We certainly need local authorities to make sure that housing and HMOs are built in a fair way in keeping with the feel of the communities that they serve.

Broxtowe Borough Council introduced an article 4 direction in Beeston to slow the change taking place in the community. Prior to article 4, Beeston had been experiencing a rapid increase in the number of HMOs. HMOs are an important part of our housing mix in Broxtowe, but a sense of community cohesion can be lost when an area has an over-concentration of a single type of dwelling. This can include people not knowing their neighbours because of a constant turnover of occupiers, which, again, leads to that sense of a lack of community. It was therefore decided that the council needed the power to evaluate proposed conversions of dwelling houses into HMOs and the effect that those conversions would have on the local community. On the completion of a consultation, the boundaries for the protected area were drawn up, which covered large parts of Beeston and Beeston Rylands.

Although the initiative was well-meaning, it has failed in places to address the problem and that has had unintended consequences. As article 4 was not applied retrospectively to either the location of HMOs or their registration, vast amounts remain undetected by the council, leading to the possibility of conversions being allowed next to existing HMOs of which the council are not aware. On the introduction of article 4, landlords were required to sign only an affidavit stating that the house had previously been an HMO, thus allowing them to navigate around the article 4 planning permission even if not true. Fortunately, the council is now requiring proof of previous HMO status.

Due to the long period that it took for article 4 to be finally approved, developers had plenty of time to take advantage of the lack of restrictions, with only the warning that regulation was on its way. Many feel that irreversible change to Beeston’s community has indeed already taken place, rendering article 4 a moot point.

The other consequence is that developers are now looking further afield for new HMOs outside of the article 4 area, putting at risk the communities of other areas, including Chilwell, Attenborough, Trowell and Bramcote. This must be addressed, and we must look at planning regulation to ensure that the individual identities of these places are not compromised.

Small towns are being impacted by these decisions. HMOs are changing the nature of our communities. It would be unfair to say that all HMOs are having a negative impact and I would like to reiterate that our student population—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Those on the Opposition Front Bench know the rules relating to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber. There is plenty of space outside the Chamber to do what the hon. Ladies are doing.

[Darren Henry]

I wish to reiterate that our student population has had, in my view, an overall positive impact in Beeston. Each HMO must be decided on by considering the street, town, neighbours, and sense of community. It is imperative that planning officers take into account the needs of local permanent residents while making plans for developments. There is a need for planning rules to be revised to ensure that HMOs are being approved by the local community for the local community. Will the Minister lay out for me today what the Government are doing to address the rising number of HMOs, and the impact that those HMOs are having on communities?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is giving way. That is his prerogative, but it has not escaped the notice of the Chair that the right hon. Member for Islington North came in late.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I missed the first two minutes of the speech, and I apologise. Following on from the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the issue of the private rented sector is devastating in inner-city areas such as mine, where private rents are now going up—the worst I have heard is an 80% increase—because of the end of restrictions on them. Will the Secretary of State take some action to bring about a rent freeze in the private rented sector? It is devastating, particularly for young people looking for flats in London, to try to find anywhere to live. They are spending a vast proportion of their income on rent, which is simply wrong and not fair. We need rent control in the private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Looking around the Chamber, it is obvious that more than 50 Members wish to speak in this debate. I will therefore put down a marker now that with effect after the Front-Bench speeches there will be a fixed time limit of five minutes, which may well drop to four minutes in the course of the afternoon. I call Ed Miliband.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he can be patient, I will give him the answer. First, the Library staff told me, “Well, certainly not under any Government since the second world war.” I asked them to go back further, and they went back to the first world war, but they said, “No, not since the first world war.” They had to go all the way back to 1855 to find that happening—before the foundation of the Labour party, I say to the hon. Gentleman. For all the enormous challenges that Governments have faced over 168 years, this Government stand out for their failure to deliver what I think all sides can agree the British people have the right to expect—rising standards of living. Throw in the highest tax burden since the 1950s, public services that are crumbling in so many areas and debt that is up, and it is no wonder that the British people are asking what they have to show for 13 years of this lot. They are being paid less and taxed more for worse quality services. Conservative Members may not like it, but it is the truth—it is their record, it is their legacy.

That takes me to the second part of my speech. Why has this happened? It is because the Government have had the wrong priorities and they have failed on growth. Let us talk about the priorities in this Budget. I welcome the fact that the Government followed our plan to stop energy bills rising even further. But let us be clear—I think this feeling is shared on both sides of the House—that £2,500 energy bills are not a cause for celebration. They are double what they were 18 months ago. The energy bills crisis is absolutely not over for families and businesses up and down this country.

Of course, when we proposed the windfall tax the Government resisted it tooth and nail. Then they were dragged kicking and screaming to do it. But here’s the thing: as they did so, they introduced a massive tax break for the very fossil fuel companies whose windfalls of war they were supposed to be taxing. It was not mentioned in the Budget, it was not even in the published OBR documents—it was in an annex—that the total cost of that loophole is £11.4 billion over the coming years. That is a tax break for companies making record profits and paying out record amounts in dividends and share buy-backs—a tax break not available to any other sector of the economy, including renewables. Think how those billions of pounds could have helped to tackle the cost of living crisis. By the Government’s choices we know their priorities, and it is not the British people.

Let us take the issue of the abolition of the pension tax relief lifetime allowance, on which we will force a vote this evening. It may interest the House to hear what a former Chancellor said about why we have a lifetime allowance. He said that

“we must demonstrate that we are all in this together. When looking for savings, I think that it is fair to look at the tax relief that we give to the top 1%.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 878.]

Who was that? Not Gordon Brown. Not Alistair Darling. It was George Osborne, in the autumn statement of 2012. Remember him? But we do not need to go back that far. I have been doing my research. What about the Budget of March 2021? I wonder who was Chancellor then—he might have gone on to higher things. The then Chancellor froze the lifetime pensions allowance for five years and said:

“It is a tax policy that is progressive and fair”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]

That was the current Prime Minister. Let me explain why he said that. The reason we have a lifetime limit on tax-free pension saving is to provide some cap on the amount of pensions tax relief for the most wealthy in our society. The average pension pot in this country is £60,000. The change the Chancellor is making to abolish the lifetime limit of over £1 million is therefore about people with a pension pot 17 times the average. The Minister nods from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] He says it is all surgeons: I will come to that in a moment.

According to the Resolution Foundation, this change will give a benefit of almost £250,000 to someone with a £2 million pension. If Members vote for this Budget measure tonight, they will be voting for a tax cut of almost £250,000 for people with a £2 million pension pot. That might be the right priority for the Government: it is not the right priority for us.

The Minister for Health and Secondary Care claims, and the Chancellor says, that they are doing this for the doctors. But according to the Resolution Foundation, five in six people with the largest pension pots, who will benefit from this change, are not doctors. They are not in medicine at all. In fact—get this—one in five of the people who will benefit are in banking and finance and nothing to do with the medical profession. There could have been a bespoke scheme at a fraction of the cost, just like there is for the judges.

We have been told by Treasury Ministers that this is the “politics of envy”. No, it is not, it is about fairness. Even George Osborne agrees with that, and when you are beaten by George Osborne on fairness, you know you are losing the argument. The other argument that Government Members have been making is that Labour is somehow creating problems by opposing this measure. Let us get this straight: the Government come along with a £1 billion tax cut for the very richest in our society when everyone is struggling and they blame us! The truth is that it says so much about them, because here’s the thing: they did not even get that it would be controversial. That is how out of touch they are.

There should have been different tax choices in the Budget to fund our schools, cut NHS waiting lists and level up our country. The Government could have ended non-dom status, but they will not do that. They could have ended the tax breaks for private schools to help fund our state schools, but they will not do that either. In preparing for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I came across a brilliant article for that proposal set out in 2017 in The Times, entitled “Put VAT on school fees”. It was written by a participant in today’s debate and I think it is worth quoting. The author said this:

“to my continuing surprise, we still consider the education of the children of plutocrats and oligarchs to be a charitable activity.”

I am not sure that we on the Opposition Front Bench would go that far, but there you go. [Laughter.] He went on to say:

“The prime minister, quite rightly, wants to end burning injustice...We could scarcely find a better way of doing that than ending tax advantages for the global super-rich and instead extending them to the vulnerable and voiceless. What better way to make next month’s budget a budget for social justice?”

Now, the House may be wondering who wrote that article. It was none other than the Levelling Up Secretary! I am a generous person, so I will give way to him and he can tell us whether he still believes what he wrote six years ago. Does he agree with himself? Why so uncharacteristically bashful? Why this sudden bout of monastic silence? It is so uncharacteristic. I would love for him to tell us: did he make the argument in Government in the run-up to the Budget, or did he just not bother to make the argument because he did not think he had a hope of persuading the people in charge? I think it is probably the latter, because, let us be honest, there is zero evidence that this Government will make the necessary choices. He knows it and the country knows it. The Government have the wrong priorities, which is why people are sick and tired of them.

Let us talk about the third part of the Budget, because it does not just have the wrong priorities for now, but for the future too. I want to come on to the energy transformation that the country needs. If we want to get energy bills down, there is a simple answer: going all in on a green energy sprint. We know that wind and solar are many times cheaper than fossil fuels, but the problem is that we have a Government who do not get it. The Levelling Up Secretary is a case in point. When he should be blocking coalmines he waves them through, as he has done in Cumbria. By the way, it will interest the House to know that he said it is carbon neutral, good for the climate and good for the environment. People may wonder. We have been going around the world lecturing people about getting off coal, so how have we suddenly got a coalmine that is good for the environment? Well, the answer is that in the calculations he made, he does not count the burning of the coal, just the mining of it. That is like saying tobacco does not damage your health if you do not take into account the smoking of it. He can correct me if I am wrong, but that is correct, isn’t it? Yes, it is correct.

The Levelling Up Secretary should support onshore wind, but he blocks it. The onshore wind ban is very important. It is symbolic. The Government have their fifth energy re-set coming next week, I believe, so I look forward to that. It is the fifth one in two and a half years—a sure sign that the policy is not going well. The onshore wind ban brought in by David Cameron raised bills—this is really important—by £160 for every family in the country. It did seem like good news, because the Levelling Up Secretary made some positive noises and promised things would change in December, but all the evidence is that yet again the Government will resile from taking the right position. This month, RenewableUK expressed its bitter disappointment, saying that

“Ministers are doing almost nothing to lift the draconian ban”.

The Energy Secretary, who is not here, calls onshore wind an “eyesore”. It makes me nostalgic, believe it or not, for the brief period when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was Business Secretary. He was an unlikely climate warrior but his proposal to bring onshore wind rules in line with other infrastructure was better than the position under the current Government. It is harder today to build an onshore wind farm—a unique category in the planning system in England, whereby, basically, if one person objects, it cannot be built—than it is to build an incinerator. That does not make any sense. Why not go for the proposal from the right hon. Member for North East Somerset? That is my injunction to the Secretary of State.

The Government have failed not just on onshore wind, but on energy efficiency. In 2010 there were 1.7 million home upgrades. Last year there were 128,000, and there was no new money in the Budget. At that rate, it will take a century to bring all homes up to an energy performance certificate C rating.

But the biggest long-term failure of the Budget is the lack of a coherent plan to compete with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. This is really serious. Talk to any business today and they will say that this is a massive competitive challenge for the UK. On offshore wind, we are doing well on generation—lots of people say that it was started by the last Labour Government—but not on delivering the jobs in offshore wind. Denmark has three times as many jobs in wind energy as us, with about a tenth of the population. Then look at other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke eloquently about steel: there are already 23 clean steel demonstration plants across Europe. How many are there in the UK? None. Across Europe, 40 gigafactories are expected to open by 2030. In the UK only one is certain. Alarmingly—this is the consequence of the onshore wind policy—the number of jobs in solar and onshore wind has actually fallen over the last five years in Britain because of the blockages in the system. That is why the Institute of Directors said just days before the Budget:

“The UK deserves nothing less than its own version of the Inflation Reduction Act”.

And the CBI pointed out our failure on spending.

I was very disappointed by the Budget. It was the moment to turn it around. It turns out there was no new money for carbon capture, but the promise of £1 billion some time in the future. I am old enough to remember when there was a £1 billion carbon capture and storage plan. It was announced 15 years ago by the last Labour Government, but was cancelled by this Government. The other boast was a reheated announcement of a competition for small modular reactors. We are in favour of new nuclear, but a reannouncement from 2015 will not make it happen.

There was warm praise for Lord Heseltine, which I agree with. I remember Lord Heseltine saying he would intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner, and then wake up the next morning and intervene again before breakfast. That is not the character of this Government. What was the Government’s reaction to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act? The Energy Secretary called it “dangerous”, the Business Secretary said it was “protectionist”, and the Chancellor did not support it. As if crying foul is going to stop the race. It will not stop the race; it will leave us behind. I do not believe that the Government get what a modern industrial policy looks like. We needed a new national wealth fund to invest in the industries of the future. We needed GB Energy, a proper publicly owned energy generation company, to invest in all forms of low carbon generation. We need a sprint for zero-carbon power by 2030. We need a plan to insulate 19 million cold, draughty homes. We got none of that from this Budget, but that is what a Labour Government would do.

In their failure to grasp the future, the Government show why it is high time they were consigned to the past. After 13 years of their failure, the last thing we need is another five years. They have the wrong priorities. They have no proper plan for the future. They cannot provide the leadership the country needs. It is time for change.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Five-minute limit. I call Simon Clarke.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said in his speech that by their choices you will know their priorities. He was absolutely right. The Chancellor showed last week that his priorities are the priorities of Teesside. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said in his speech that he would take anyone who wanted on a tour of Teesside to see our freeport and the fantastic progress being made there. Many Opposition Members would benefit from such a tour, because they would see the transformative impact of the carbon capture and storage investment that the Chancellor reaffirmed last week.

Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State said in his closing remarks, Net Zero Teesside is a reality. It is going up as we speak, backed by Shell, Equinor and BP—real companies investing in a real project that is transformational not just for the industries of the future, but our existing industrial base in steel, chemicals, plastics and all those industries which emit carbon dioxide as an intrinsic part of their production, not just in terms of the emissions released as part of energy generation, but as a by-product. That is why carbon capture is so vital. That is why it was so welcome that it was backed strongly in the Budget last week. We had a welcome decision on new nuclear and its classification as a sustainable technology, which is absolutely right and vital for the future. I welcome warmly the position to keep Hartlepool nuclear power station producing for two more years.

Critically, there was direct investment in our communities—£20 million secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) for Eston Square, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly celebrated in his remarks. That follows the £15 million for Guisborough in my constituency, the £6 million for Loftus and the £36 million for the Middlesbrough town deal. That is investment in the economic drivers of growth and in the communities that need it. By the time we go to the polls in 2024, the Government’s levelling up plan will have transformed people’s lives—that is a good sign.

There was much else to welcome in the Budget including, critically, the announcements on childcare—something that the group Next Gen Tories has been campaigning hard for. We all know across this House that the cost of childcare is unsustainably high and deeply unfair. The campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed has reported that for two thirds of families, childcare costs are as much as their mortgage. That is totally unjust and clearly an obstacle not just for the economy but for our having the children we need as a society. It is right that the Chancellor has taken bold action to address it.

I also welcome the abolition of the lifetime allowance on pensions, which will have a major impact on our retaining the doctors we need. The response of the British Medical Association says a lot more than that of shadow Front Benchers, who we have seen in complete chaos, with the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Health Secretary utterly at odds about this important measure.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is bold action on worklessness. The OBR estimates that 110,000 more people will be supported into the workplace by 2027-28. That is exactly what we need—the combination of challenge and support that people across the country want from the welfare state and our excellent jobcentres. It is an absolute scandal that too many people have their lives written off as economically inactive owing to health conditions, when they could work. There is all the support and ingenuity that can be deployed available to help with that vital process. All that was to be welcomed in the Budget.

There were some aspects of the Budget that I wish had been different. I have made no secret of my deep concern about the decisions surrounding the future of our corporation tax increase. I think that we have seen the consequences already with the decision of AstraZeneca to choose the Republic of Ireland over the UK for its next investment. I welcome the offsetting benefits of the full expensing that the Chancellor announced. If that is to work, it is vital that it is a permanent decision rather than simply a temporary relief, otherwise it will have a distorting effect on business investment. I very much hope that the Chancellor will make that permanent if the headroom is there to enable it, as he said he would. That will be vital to ensure that the measure is a success.

It will not surprise Members across the House that I believe that we need to do more on the generators of growth more generally. I point out the importance of housing, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. In the end, the only sustainable way to improve our economic activity in this space—and the social justice of our housing debate—is to build more homes, addressing the challenges of nimbyism and nutrient neutrality. I hope and believe that there will be more progress on that in the months ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson. No time limit.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4)(c) includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England.”

This amendment confirms that licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) may provide for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England for the purposes of the regulations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.

This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.

Government amendment 3, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) each local housing authority in England,

(aa) each social services authority in England,”.

This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).

[Felicity Buchan]

We have already heard earlier in the Bill’s passage that there is a real risk of rogue providers changing location in order to avoid regulation. I am determined to put a stop to the exploitation of vulnerable people through the provision of poor-quality supported housing. For the rogues this is a lucrative activity, which is incentive enough for them to move location in order to avoid impending regulation.

The Bill currently provides that licensing regulations may include provision under which the Secretary of State may designate the district of “a” local housing authority as subject to licensing. The amendment clarifies that such provision includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate every district in England as subject to licensing, which means that the Secretary of State could introduce universal local licensing by exercising a power to be conferred by the licensing regulations of clause 4 to designate every local housing authority district in England. It is important that this is set out clearly as an option. The licensing regulations must still make provision for a local housing authority to self-designate, and may require a local housing authority to do so if conditions are met.

I tabled amendment 1 because the Government need to be able to reset the system. We must be able to put a stop to providers simply moving to areas without a licensing scheme and setting up there. With universal local licensing, we could prevent a landlord who had failed a “fit and proper person” test in an area with a licensing scheme from simply relocating to an area without licensing, and thus potentially protect vulnerable residents. If universal local licensing is pursued—and I consider it to be an option—that will mean that all residents of supported housing, wherever they are in England, can take comfort from the fact that the national supported housings standards will be enforced, and action will be taken should a provider not meet them. That option must be available to the Secretary of State.

I want to reassure Members that the Government will consult on the detail of the licensing regime, as is required in the Bill. That, of course, includes consulting on the duty set out in clause 6 relating to the method of enforcing the national supported housing standards, and the effectiveness of the licensing regime. We remain determined that the regime should be light-touch in order to avoid overburdening good providers and local authorities, but also robust enough to force out those running supported housing for the wrong reasons. We will keep the licensing scheme under review to ensure that it is working as was intended. I hope that Members will agree to our making this change.

Let me now deal with Government amendment 2. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) cannot be present today because of future commitments, and he sent me his apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling a similar amendment in Committee, and I am pleased to be able to bring it back to the House today. In Committee he spoke of his concerns about how residents could access supported housing, and expressed particular concern about the problems experienced by residents who were mixed together inappropriately, as well as the increased advertising of supported housing provision on websites such as Gumtree and Zoopla. On the latter point, I can offer some reassurance. I recently met representatives of Gumtree, at their request, to discuss the practice by some supported housing providers of placing advertisements on its website. Gumtree, I am glad to say, has already started to crack down on these inappropriate advertisements and has expressed its willingness to continue to work with the Government on this matter. Members will know that Gumtree is not the only service that can enable rogue landlords to advertise poor-quality supported housing. The Government will work with these services to find solutions, and my amendment will also help.

In the report on exempt accommodation, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee also raised the issue of access routes into supported housing. I am well aware that residents are finding their way into supported housing through a variety of routes, including websites, as I mentioned earlier, where landlords purport to be providing supported housing but are, in fact, perpetuating the abuse that we are here to tackle. At best, placing someone in supported housing without testing its suitability will mean that the right outcomes will not be achieved and the person will not be able to move on into independent living, if that is appropriate. At worst, failing to assess the residents’ needs is a clear indicator that genuine support is simply not being delivered at all, and that is not acceptable.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I are in agreement that it is vital that the resident’s support needs are assessed, so that they can be given the right support in the right accommodation. Once these arrangements are in place, we would expect assessments to be carried out in advance of a resident moving into the accommodation, but, in some circumstances, we recognise that that may not be possible. None the less, all supported housing residents must have the confidence that they are living in the right place with the support that they need. Amendment 2 proposed by the Government delivers on that by adding to the list of conditions that may be attached to a supported housing licence at clause 5(3) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents, or potential residents, including in relation to the conduct of those needs assessments. The fine details will, of course, be subject to consultation, but this amendment demonstrates the importance that the House places on proper support being given to supported housing residents, tailored to their individual need. I hope Members agree with me on that.

Amendment 3 is more of a technical amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for proposing this amendment in Committee and I am pleased to be able to return with it today. The amendment seeks to amend clause 6, following a request from the Local Government Association to be removed as a statutory consultee. The Bill includes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult on a number of issues related to the measures in the Bill. As I have said in earlier debates, it is very important to me that we carefully test these measures for unintended consequences before implementation. As determined as I am to drive out poor provision and drive up standards in supported housing, I am equally determined to ensure that good providers can continue to support the vulnerable people who need these vital services.

The Local Government Association asked to be replaced as a statutory consultee by local authorities. Local authorities—or to use the language of the Bill, local housing authorities and social service authorities—will deliver many of the measures in the Bill. It is right that we seek their views before making regulations. In line with that request, the amendment removes the Local Government Association from the list of statutory consultees in clause 6 and replaces them with local housing authorities and social services authorities in England. The effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to consult local housing authorities and social service authorities on the design of the licensing regime before making regulations. I hope that hon. Members will agree with this amendment also.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

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

When we are considering opportunities for private Members’ Bills and when we are drawn in the lottery for them, it is important that we consider what we are going to take forward. I am very conscious that I have met many Members who have been in this House for more than 20 years and have never been drawn in the ballot, and this is my second opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill. [Interruption.] Members have to enter the ballot if they want to succeed.

My experience in 2016 with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was a key pointer, because Members have the choice of taking a Bill that the Government would like them to take, developing a Bill that the Government completely oppose and going down in flames, or developing their own. In both cases when I have been drawn, I have chosen the latter. That is not the easy route by any means, but when I had the opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill, I wanted to make sure that I helped vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves. That is why the Homelessness Reduction Act, the single biggest reform in housing for more than 40 years, came about.

This new Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, deals with the vulnerable people who should be assisted as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Both that Act and this Bill stem from reports published by Select Committees on which I have had the honour of serving: we have provided the evidence base and have almost carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bills before we propose them.

I am pleased to speak to this Bill once more as it reaches Third Reading, and I am encouraged by the journey thus far. We have engaged in meaningful and constructive debate, leading to the fine-tuned edits that we have just made on Report. The main message of the Bill, however, remains the same: we want to prevent vulnerable tenants from being exploited by rogue landlords. My central message to the good providers out there—there are some brilliant organisations that help vulnerable people—is that they have nothing to fear from the new legislation. It is the rogues we are after—those who exploit vulnerable people.

As the cost of living crisis continues to affect residents across the country, the need for supported accommodation is growing rapidly. It is therefore vital that we regulate the market now, before many more vulnerable people are subjected to the horrors that are far too often demonstrated. Once again, I take the opportunity to recommend that individuals read the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is available from the Vote Office and other good bookshops: it is a right riveting read. That report highlighted the extent to which tenants were abused, forced and manipulated into damaging practices, whether it be prostitution, substance abuse or discouragement from work—I could go on. People are exploited in an unacceptable way.

The main reason that people are referred to supported housing is to receive the constructive support they need to transition back to normality, yet far too often, those people go backwards as a consequence of damaging malpractice. It is an issue that is popping up in more and more constituencies all over England, highlighting the need for prompt regulation. The sheer volume of money that landlords can make in this corrupt practice is so huge that once others learn of it, they jump on the bandwagon. It is a licence to print masses of money very quickly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he may resume his speech in a few moments.

Debate interrupted.

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgot to make a declaration of interest. My wife works for a travel company and, as there was talk in the debate about staycations, that may be regarded as a conflict of interest. I want to make the House aware of that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has placed his declaration on the record. That is a matter of record.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and what I think was her support for our scheme. She asked about the visa application process and the length and bureaucracy associated with it. As was announced last week in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, and as I repeat today, Ukrainians who have a valid passport can have their application turned around within 24 hours, but not in the way to which the hon. Lady referred, which was announced last week. It is time that, instead of manufacturing synthetic outrage, she kept up with what the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are delivering. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has already had a go.

The hon. Lady asked about matching families and sponsors. We are moving as quickly as possible to ensure, working with NGOs and local government, that individuals in need can be found the families and sponsors they need in order to get people into this country as quickly as possible. I am grateful to her for speaking to people in local government this morning; we were speaking and I was speaking to people in local government 10 days ago to ensure that this scheme was capable of being delivered.

The hon. Lady asked why we are requiring matching in the way that we are. That is because our scheme has been developed in partnership with non-governmental organisations, which have welcomed our approach. We have been doing the practical work of ensuring that refugee organisations on the ground can help to shape our response in order to help those most in need.

I know that the hon. Lady wants to help. I believe that everyone in this House wants to ensure that this scheme is successful. She makes a number of valid points about the need for school places. That is why additional funding is available to every local authority that will take refugees in order to ensure that school places are provided.

The hon. Lady asked about wraparound care. We are providing additional funding to local government to ensure that the expertise required to provide those who have been traumatised with the support they need will also be there.

The hon. Lady asked not only about the rapidity of vetting checks, but about how the comprehensive nature of those vetting checks can be guaranteed. We have been working with the Home Office to streamline that process so that it is as quick as possible, but also to ensure, as she rightly pointed out, that we do not place vulnerable children in accommodation where they might be at risk.

In all those cases, every single point that the hon. Lady made has been addressed by officials, NGOs and those in local government to ensure that our scheme works. As her questions have been answered, it now falls to her to get behind the scheme and support those open-hearted British people who want to ensure that we can do everything possible to help those in need. It is time to rise above partisan politics and recognise that this is a united effort in which our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and those in NGOs are working with the Government to put humanity first.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has generated a great deal of progress in the last few days, but he will understand that we still have a long way to go. I do not want to bore the House or you, Mr Speaker, with my experiences in France last weekend, but I learned a lot from them. We need a meet and greet system, and there are other things that we need to put in place quickly if the scheme is going to work, so I would be grateful if he or Lord Harrington of Watford could meet me today or tomorrow to ensure that we avoid some of the elephant traps that face us if we do not get it right.

[Michael Gove]

Over the last 10 days, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with me daily to outline offers of help from his constituents and others. He is a model constituency MP and a humanitarian. Lord Harrington of Watford will meet him tomorrow to ensure that we can operationalise those offers of help.

Tyne Bridge: Celebrating 100 Years

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and also before they leave the room after the debate, and I also remind Members that the Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered celebrating 100 years of the Tyne Bridge.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to share with you and the Minister the details of the celebration of our fantastic Tyne bridge.

We often say of people that they need no introduction, and that is certainly true of the Tyne bridge. It is a great icon of the north-east, of our pride, our people, our culture and our engineering. It is one of the greatest bridges of the world and, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful bridge ever built—or it is when it is looking its best, which is not now. The Tyne bridge is a nonagenarian. It will be 100 years old in 2028. We want to celebrate it and the purpose of this debate is to find out from the Minister what he plans to bring to the party.

First, I will give a little bit of history. The roots of our Tyne bridge go back millennia. The first recorded bridge across the Tyne, near to the location of the current bridge, was the Roman pons aelius, which was built in about 122 AD. The Romans believed that all rivers had a god who blessed the community living by the water, and representations of the Tyne’s river god can be found across Tyneside to this day. In 1270, a medieval stone bridge was built, which stood for 500 years until it was badly damaged by the great flood of 1771 and replaced by a new stone bridge in 1781. That replacement was itself removed in 1866 to allow the taller ships that existed by then to pass up the Tyne, with the swing bridge being built in 1876 by the “Magician of the North”, William Armstrong.

In August 1925, construction of the current Tyne bridge began. High enough for ships to pass underneath, it was built for the new age of the motorised vehicle and to cope with the increased volume of traffic across the Tyne. Made of steel and granite, the bridge was a major feat of engineering. It was constructed using shipbuilding techniques by local shipyard workers—hence the steel rivets, which can still be seen today. When it was opened in August 1928, it was the world’s longest span bridge. I recommend that everyone sees the fantastic photographs of its construction, which can be found online.

The Tyne bridge is sometimes cited as a prototype for the Sydney Harbour bridge. In fact, although the Sydney Harbour bridge was not completed until four years after the Tyne bridge opened, work began on Sydney’s bridge first. Although the two bridges had the same design team, the differences between them are really quite striking, as was explained to me by Vin Riley, a local engineer and historian. The Sydney Harbour bridge is 1,149 metres in length and 48 metres wide, which makes it almost exactly three times the size of the Tyne bridge, which is 389 metres long and 17 metres wide. But what the Tyne bridge may lack in size, it more than makes up for in beauty, being more perfectly proportioned than Sydney Harbour bridge.

The Sydney Harbour bridge is simply flatter, as its nickname of “the Coathanger” implies. That makes for a gentler, less hair-raising experience for those who have walked the bridge arch—I have not done so, but I understand that it is very popular—but it also makes the bridge less inspiring. The arch of the Sydney Harbour bridge is thicker at its base than at its height. The Tyne bridge, on the other hand, is thinner at its earth-bound side and much broader at the height of the arch, which gives the impression that it is bounding up, soaring away, almost as if it were trying to shake itself free of its earthly constraints. What more apt symbol could there be of the people of the north-east, who have so often shown through generosity and social activism, through passion and protest, through hope and hard work, a desire to put an end to earthly pain and a determination to build a better, brighter and more just world?

That is not the only way in which the Tyne bridge represents our whole region. It connects the north and south of the Tyne and spans the region in its construction. It was built by Dorman Long, which went on to become British Steel and was based in Middlesbrough on the Tees. Building the Tyne bridge was a mammoth task, and workmen risked their lives working up to 200 feet above the river without the benefit of safety harnesses, helmets and ropes. One worker died—Nathaniel Collins, a 33-year-old scaffolder from South Shields.

The bridge was officially opened on 10 October 1928 by King George V. The King and Queen were the first to cross it in their State Landau horse-drawn carriage, as thousands of people lined the streets for the opening ceremony and 20,000 local schoolchildren were given the day off to mark the occasion.

It is particularly fitting that we are celebrating the bridge today, as it is International Women in Engineering Day. The Dorman Long design team included the first woman to gain entry to the Institution of Civil Engineers, Dorothy Buchanan. As a chartered engineer myself—though an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer—I want to pay particular tribute to her on this day. She said:

“I felt that I represented all the women in the world. It was my hope that I would be followed by many others.”

It is our hope, too. In 2018, more than 90 female engineers from across the country gathered in Newcastle to celebrate the bridge’s 90th birthday and Dorothy Buchanan.

Today, the Tyne bridge is an important part of our north-east transport infrastructure and is used by more than 70,000 vehicles every day. It was upgraded to grade II* listed status in August 2018 as part of the Great Exhibition of the North, meaning that it is a particularly important structure of more than special interest. It is also home to the furthest inland breeding kittiwake colony in the world. Any work on the bridge must be planned around their breeding season on the towers.

The beautiful granite towers, which stand at each edge of the bridge, used to be open to the public, but in recent years have been used only for the odd illegal rave. It is a huge pity that there is no longer a legal way for north-east communities to use that space. It has magnificent views across the Tyne, from the north and the south, and would be a superb exhibition space, restaurant or other community space.

But the bridge as a whole is not looking its best—far from it. I am regularly contacted by constituents and visitors to our city upset at the state into which it has been allowed to fall. A bridge of that stature and importance requires regular safety checks, repairs, preservation and upkeep. The Tyne bridge was last fully painted in 2000, and the paint system is designed to last approximately 18 to 20 years, so a new paint job is overdue. Repairs are needed to the road deck, the towers, the stonework and the steelwork, and a new drainage system needs to be installed. A major refurbishment takes time—some years—in addition to the tendering process, which may also take over a year. If the bridge is to be ready for its birthday, we need to start planning it now.

We want to celebrate the Tyne bridge in 2028, and celebrate our region. Just last week, Members of Parliament from across the north-east—many Members wished to contribute to this debate but were unable to be here—together with local authority leaders, the North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll and the police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Transport Secretary to request the £18.5 million needed to repaint the bridge from the levelling up fund. We want to ensure that it looks at its best, as a symbol of our region’s proud engineering past and, we hope, prosperous future. We want to make it fit for a queen—the Queen, in fact. We very much hope that the Queen will consider commemorating the bridge her grandfather opened.

We cannot allow the bridge to continue in its current state of disrepair. It represents our region nationally and globally. It is the familiar backdrop to the annual great north run, as 54,000 runners pass over the bridge, accompanied by a display from the Red Arrows. The bridge is also used for other large events, including hosting the rings for the 2012 Olympics, the 2015 rugby world cup, and, more recently, the 2019 European rugby champions cup final. It was the location for the amazing closing ceremony of Freedom City 2017, when we celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King’s visit to our city, and also the closing ceremony of the Great Exhibition of the North.

However, the sad fact is that the bridge’s last proper birthday celebrations were for its 75th birthday, hosted by local mayors from Gateshead and Newcastle. The Sydney Harbour bridge, on the other hand, is celebrated annually as the backdrop for the first fireworks display of each new year and had a large, organised 80th birthday celebration, with a special performance by musicians on the top of its 134 metre-high arch. The Tyne bridge, I am afraid to say, had nothing.

The Government make much of their levelling-up agenda, yet the north seems to be forgotten when it comes to celebrating our communities. I have raised with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade that they only seem to use London images—red buses and Big Ben—to promote the United Kingdom abroad. Why not the Tyne bridge and the Angel of the North? Global Britain must mean global Britain including the north-east. If this refurbishment does not happen and the bridge is allowed to continue in its current state of disrepair and neglect, I am afraid to say that it will become a different kind of symbol of the north-east. It will become a symbol of the neglect of the north-east, which has been forgotten by this Government—its great heritage and great future have been forgotten.

What support does the Minister propose to offer my region for this momentous celebration? I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us the Communities Secretary’s response to our levelling-up fund application—although I would be very much pleased if he gave a certain yes—but does he agree that celebrations of such a national icon cannot be left simply to the local authority funds? Does he recognise that 10 years of austerity have slashed local government spending? For example, Newcastle City Council has lost more than a third of its spending power since 2010, with city spending entirely taken up by statutory duties such as social care. Does the Minister agree that local authorities cannot be expected to fund such a major project? Would he expect Westminster City Council to pay for the refurbishment of the Big Ben, for example?

How will the Minister ensure that all the north-east’s communities benefit from the celebrations? How will he work with other Departments to ensure that great engineering stories, such as those of Dorman Long and—this is particularly relevant on International Women in Engineering Day—of Dorothy Buchanan, are celebrated as part of the festivities? We want to inspire another generation of engineers, particularly women engineers, with our celebrations. Will the Minister talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure support for protecting our kittiwakes?

In the north-east, we know how to give a party. The north-east will bring our bridge, our passion and our people to the party. What will the Minister bring?

Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me remind hon. Members that there have been changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically—that is all but one this morning—and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate and remain for the entire debate. Members participating virtually must leave their camera on for the duration of a debate, so that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, please email the Westminster Hall Clerks; the email address is [e-mail].

Members attending physically—[Interruption.] Good morning, Mr Shannon. We will allow you the minute’s grace. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. There are no Members attending and waiting to speak, so the next bit does not really apply. Members who are not on the call list but wish to intervene can do so only from the horseshoe, and those on the call list have priority for spaces on the horseshoe. Members wishing to intervene should not prevent a Member on the call list from speaking.

Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing the debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that, because of time constraints, my remarks will have to be fairly brutal, but I mean no discourtesy to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey mentioned that 41% of our native species are in decline, and 15% of those species are threatened with extinction. We have lost 97% of our meadows, 80% of our chalk grasslands and 50% of our ancient woodlands. The United Kingdom, to our shame, is one of the most nature-depleted nations in the world. The Prime Minister set a target of having 30% nature-friendly land in the United Kingdom by 2030. If we are to hit that 30:30 target, we will have to take some fairly serious action.

The Wildlife Trusts said in response to the “Planning for the Future” White Paper that it would

“do little to create better homes and communities for wildlife and people. The proposals for three new zones do nothing for nature’s recovery—both the ‘Growth’ and ‘Renewal’ zones fail to integrate nature, and it is business as usual in the ‘Protected’ zone.”

The proposal for a wild belt is certainly a useful tool and a good suggestion for a way forward. However, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the hedgerows of this country, the headlands on agricultural land and the agricultural land itself, with the changing crops and changing seasons, provide the best possible habitat, if we are serious about renewing this country. We have to protect agricultural land. I look to my right hon. Friend to assure me that that will happen.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 2,704 applications were received. A significant number of them, I regret to tell the House, were not sufficient to allow an immediate assessment, but more than 100 have been assessed successfully to move on to the next stage. The first tender for payment has been agreed, and I am confident that by the end of the financial year for which this money was set aside, it will have been fully allocated, and remediation work will have begun.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that people should not be required to pay for faults that they did not cause, and he is absolutely right. Further to the point raised by the Father of the House, I have in my constituency one block that has social housing, private rented accommodation and full and shared leaseholders; will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the leaseholder element will not ever be faced with a disproportionate bill that will in effect pay for those who do not pay at all?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said earlier, I cannot say that there will not be some cost that may occur at some point to leaseholders for historical defects work that may be undertaken, but we do want to make sure that, as a result of the work that Michael Wade is doing with the financial services and others, any such costs are fair and reasonable and can be carried. That is why we have put aside that £1.6 billion to make sure that the cost of cladding remediation for cladding such as ACM and high-pressure laminate can be funded by the taxpayer when the developers are not able to fund it, so that the cost does not fall on the leaseholder.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I am not exactly sure what promise the hon. Lady was referring to, but we have certainly kept our promises to protect councils during this pandemic by providing them with billions of pounds of funding to support their covid response. We see the devolution and local recovery White Paper as an exciting opportunity to lay out our plans for devolution in this Parliament. We will bring it forward in due course, and I am very happy to listen to her representations about what should be in it.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to ensure that high-quality agricultural land is not used for housing developments.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already alluded, in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), to the £400 million brownfield fund, delivering 26,000 homes, and our commitment to prioritising brownfield sites does not end there. Our national planning policy framework is clear that brownfield should be prioritised for redevelopment for housing, and that local authorities should avoid using our best and most versatile farmland wherever and whenever possible.

[Sir Roger Gale [V]]

My right hon. Friend knows that I have a high regard for him personally, but I am afraid that that does not extend to a planning White Paper that seems designed to smother the south-east of England and the garden of England in houses not for local people but for people from elsewhere. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), the Secretary of State said that the brownfield fund would be made available to metropolitan areas. Will that be extended across the board to rural areas as well? Also, could my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that all of the 1 million consents already granted will be used before a single further blade of greenfield site in agricultural land is also used?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. I can confirm that, though he is correct that the £400 million made available for the brownfield regeneration fund was targeted at mayoral combined authorities, the home building fund has in it £5 billion to support new housing, including brownfield projects. More than 300 projects in England will receive a share of the £900 million to get Britain building: the getting building fund. That will also, I trust, support his constituency. I also remind him that just a couple of days ago we voted for permitted development rights, which will allow for the reimagining of town centres, and the demolition and rebuild of disused commercial buildings. That will also take the weight off any pressure on green spaces, so the Government are committed to the end that my right hon. Friend wants: building brownfield first.