Category: Speeches

Jonathan Gullis – 2022 Speech on the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

The speech made by Jonathan Gullis, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

On 19 June 2021, the Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke community was rocked when it learned of the tragic death of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky. Sharlotte was killed when John Owen hit her with his car on Endon Road in Norton Green on that fateful day. John Owen was twice over the drink-drive limit, had a series of drugs in his system, was using a mobile phone, had no seatbelt on, and was speeding. Sharlotte was on the pavement with her father, who was also struck. She was on the way to get some sweets for a girls’ night with her mother. This unforgivable and selfish act has taken away a precious young life, left a family broken and scarred a community. It was an event that shocked the entire city of Stoke-on-Trent, with hundreds of people lining the streets for Sharlotte’s funeral in an outpouring of profound grief.

Since that horrific night, I have been working with Sharlotte’s brave and inspiring mother, Claire Reynolds—she is in the Public Gallery alongside Sharlotte’s grandfather —The Sentinel and her friends to get the justice they rightfully deserve. Before I speak about why I join Claire and the Stoke-on-Trent community in wanting Mr Owen’s sentence increased so that justice can rightfully be served, I want to take a moment to promote the idea of Sharlotte’s law.

Mr Owen caused much distress by prolonging the investigation into Sharlotte’s death, to exploit, in my opinion, loopholes in our justice system. Mr Owen was in a coma when the investigation began, and the law brought about significant problems. Legally, blood samples can be taken without a suspect’s consent yet not subject to a test until consent is given. Therefore, in such situations, the investigation is delayed until consent is received. The current law addressing that is section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsection (4) outlines three criteria that must be met to test a blood sample, one of which is the person providing their consent.

I understand from subsection (6) that

“A person who…fails to give his permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of blood”

without a reasonable excuse is, under section 7A,

“guilty of an offence.”

It therefore seems that consent is simply a formality. Effectively, anything other than providing permission would constitute an offence. The law protracted the investigation into Mr Owen and caused knock-on delays in moving the case forward. Claire has been so brave, sharing her struggles with not just me but the local press, too. She has been battling her own mental health problems that have no doubt been exacerbated by the delays and issues brought about by this law.

It seems simple to me. If we are to free up police time and resources, testing blood samples should be happening regardless of consent, in order to get answers. If a suspect has nothing to fear, why would they object to testing? Claire is adamant and defiant that Sharlotte’s death and the torment her family went through will not be for nothing. She wants to see the consent law scrapped where loss of life has occurred due to a collision with a motor vehicle.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his assiduousness in looking after his constituents. He has done that since he first came to this place and he continues to do so. I fully and wholeheartedly support what he puts forward. When it comes to justice and victims, the victims should be the priority. Those who are guilty, even at an early stage, of not giving a blood sample should be advised that there is no other option—they must give it. Does he agree?

Jonathan Gullis

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I could not agree with him more and I thank him for his kind words. I have rehearsed this speech a few times, hoping not to get teary. It is quite difficult. He is right that people should not fear the law if they have not done anything wrong. A six-year-old should not have lost her life. Worst of all, she should not have had her killer sentenced to only two and a half years in prison. That is not justice.

I have pursued this disparity in the law with parliamentary colleagues and raised it in the House multiple times. I have met officials and made a submission to the Department for Transport’s call for evidence on drug driving. I am seeking support from Ministers to implement Sharlotte’s law. Obviously, I will cheekily use this opportunity to see if the Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), will add his name to that call.

The main purpose for holding this debate today is to consider the unduly lenient sentence scheme. On 4 October 2022, John Owen was sentenced to six years and four months in prison, with the most shocking revelation being that Mr Owen would only spend two and a half years behind bars. Considering that Judge Glenn told Mr Owen that he was

“an accident waiting to happen”,

that rubs salt into the wounds of Sharlotte’s family. The whole north Staffordshire community, myself and most importantly Claire and Sharlotte’s family are rightly outraged at this insultingly lenient sentence, which means that John Owen will have served less time than the young life he has taken.

With Claire’s support, I wrote to the Attorney General, who at the time was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to seek to have the sentence challenged as part of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Regrettably, the initial response I received from the Solicitor General failed to answer some of the questions I raised about the insulting sentencing of John Owen. I therefore re-wrote to the now Attorney General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), seeking clarification on several points.

On researching sentences for deaths by dangerous driving, I uncovered that there are categories that judges use as a guideline to determine for how long an offender is sentenced. While Judge Glenn correctly placed Mr Owen in category 1, the highest and most serious category, it is incredibly disappointing that the sentence passed is at the lower end of the spectrum. Category 1 is anywhere between eight and 14 years. Judge Glenn sentenced Sharlotte’s killer to nine and a half years, before giving a third off to Mr Owen, who had, by some cold legal definition, given a guilty plea at the “earliest opportunity”. In reality, he had exhausted scapegoating the idea he was unfit to stand trial.

After my meeting with the Solicitor General, it became clearer that the sentence could have been higher if the following “aggravating factors” had been involved: multiple deaths; if the vehicle was stolen; if the driver had a previous history of bad driving; or if the driver fled the scene. In Sharlotte’s case, none of those applies. However, if John Owen having been drinking and on drugs does not act as a severe aggravating factor, and display a complete disregard for others’ lives and a willingness selfishly to endanger life such that a six-year-old girl was killed as she walked along the pavement in her home village of Norton Green, victims like Claire will continue to be failed by our justice system.

It is well documented from John Owen’s friends that he was drinking earlier on in the day and chose to get in the car, with complete contempt for life. That sheer selfishness should be an aggravating factor. It demonstrates that, despite his friends’ protests, he neglected the fact that he was not fit to drive and made an active choice to get behind the wheel. The devastating fact is that he simply did not care and then went on to kill a beautiful young girl.

Jim Shannon

It is fairly obvious to everyone in the House that this is a very difficult experience for the hon. Gentleman and for the family, who are in the Gallery. I suspect that he is seeking a change to ensure that the law is sufficient when it comes to a blood test. He referred to aggravation and how the person disregarded the family and their feelings. We in this House unite with our friend and colleague to fully support him and what he proposes. In particular, on behalf of the family, who are here, I salute him—well done.

Jonathan Gullis

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The impact of Sharlotte’s death is impossible to overestimate. I have already explained the deeply saddening impact that it has had on Sharlotte’s immediate family. However, it has also had a huge effect on the local community.

The killing of an innocent child in such tragic circumstances comes with a set of exceptional impacts on the children around Sharlotte, which are unlikely to be felt in cases not involving the death of a child. Sharlotte’s classmates and children in the local community have been left with lasting effects, to the point where some have required specialist counselling and have been left scared to walk at the sides of busy roads. Sharlotte’s death will stay with these children long into adulthood, and I am staggered that that would not also have been considered as part of the sentencing.

In addition, I raised the legal ambiguities surrounding John Owen’s guilty plea. Mr Owen pleaded guilty long after he killed Sharlotte, in May 2022, when the report came back and demonstrated overwhelming evidence against him, including that he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Mr Owen did not plead guilty until that report was produced; he could have done that far earlier. Legally, he pleaded guilty at the “earliest possible” moment, but given the lengthy delay and ample opportunity, I do not believe that that should entitle him to the whole one-third reduction in his sentence. I feel the law should consider that with more nuance. It is totally different to plead guilty as soon as possible compared with as soon as “legally possible”.

By definition, the unduly lenient sentence scheme allows the Attorney General to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal if it is too low. However, it appears that the scheme is practically useless if a case such as this one cannot be at least reviewed. The parameters to get a case reviewed by the Court of Appeal must be extraordinary. That, for me, brings into question the relevance of the scheme. I must ask: what is the point of it, considering that, as a Member of Parliament, I cannot help to get this truly harrowing miscarriage of justice at least appealed? Claire and I were no less than astonished by the Attorney General’s response, which ignored all my further questions. It feels as though the legal system did not care that a mother and a whole community felt completely let down by the law that is supposed to protect them.

To touch on the local actions following Sharlotte’s death, those should serve as an example to the Attorney General about how things must be adapted in response to such an emotive case. Local ward councillors for the area, such as Councillor Dave Evans and Councillor Carl Edwards, have been pushing for traffic-calming measures on Endon Road for many years. It is tragic that it has taken the death of a six-year-old girl for there to be a signalised pedestrian crossing, intermittent speed humps and more markings, but it shows a fundamental recognition that changes were needed following this tragedy—a concept that I advise the Attorney General and the Government to think about. Councillors are also pushing for a weight limit on the road to stop the HGV rat run; I hope that Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council can work together to agree on that limit as soon as possible. I would like personally to thank Councillor Carl Edwards, Councillor Dave Evans, Norton Green Residents Association and the local community for their hard work in pushing for road safety in the area.

I am grateful for the Solicitor General agreeing to meet me, following our correspondence, and pleased that our meeting was constructive. During the meeting, he and I discussed gross errors. In legal terms, a gross error is when a judge incorrectly misapplies the law, for example by placing a defendant in the wrong category. Understandably, the Solicitor General argued that the case could not be referred to the Court of Appeal because no gross error had been made. That effectively means that if a judge puts a defendant in the right category, there is no way to argue that the sentence is too lenient.

I believe that that is far too simplistic. It fails to consider that a category 1 sentence can range from eight to 14 years—a substantial difference that would have had a huge impact on the perception of the case. If, for example, the case had been referred to the Court of Appeal and John Owen’s sentence had been extended to the maximum 14 years, it would be perceived to be far more rigorous. However, because the gross error clause only allows cases in the wrong category to be referred, we were unable to bring Sharlotte’s killer to the real justice that he deserves.

It was a huge disappointment to hear that, especially considering that the Solicitor General and I both voted for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which takes a more robust approach to causing death by dangerous driving—indeed, it extends the maximum sentence way above 14 years. In my view, this sentence undermines the Act’s more rigorous stance on causing death by dangerous driving. Although I accept that that cannot be retrospectively applied to Mr Owen, it does not deter those who might think it sensible to get in their car under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

The experience also raises obvious questions about the application of the new law by judges. If Judge Glenn arrived at this insulting sentence within the current parameters, I am not at all confident that a similar sentence would not be issued even under the changes that we have made in this House. I was hugely grateful to the Lord Chancellor for agreeing at Justice questions yesterday to meet Claire and me to discuss sentencing guidelines and try to ensure no other family feels let down by the justice system again.

Ultimately, it is without question that the difficulties that Claire has had in bringing the killer of her six-year-old daughter to justice are wholly unacceptable. There are significant nuances in the law that allowed Mr Owen to prolong the case significantly, yet unnecessarily. That meant that the case dragged on for too long, which has had devastating consequences for Claire and her family. More importantly, it is still my view and that of the Stoke-on-Trent community that John Owen’s sentence is shockingly lenient, considering what he did. The law clearly works in favour of the killer, not the victim—that is the message that I am hearing in the streets of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. As I said, John Owen is likely to spend only two and a half years in prison. That is simply nowhere near enough time behind bars, considering the consequences of his selfishness.

For all the nuanced, sophisticated legal arguments that the Solicitor General is forced to put forward, it is impossible to ignore the real consequences of what John Owen did on that day in June last year. After consuming far too much alcohol to drive, along with cocaine, he recklessly and selfishly decided that the law did not apply to him and got in his car. By taking that demonstrably thoughtless decision, he killed an innocent six-year-old girl. In my mind, that is one of the worst crimes imaginable.

Over the past year, Claire’s courage in the face of unimaginable adversity has been humbling. She will not stop until the man who killed her daughter is punished properly for the abhorrent crime that he committed. I will join her in that fight, on every step of the way.

24/11/2022
George Eustice – 2022 Speech on Cornwall

The speech made by George Eustice, the Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

I rise to set out the case for new clauses 70 and 71 in my name with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) as well as numerous other Members from all parts of the House, including several Liberal Democrats, among them its leader, about which I will say a little more later.

I was very pleased that the Chancellor made direct reference to Cornwall in the context of the next round of devolution deals in his autumn statement last week, but linked to the agreement is a more controversial decision about whether Cornwall should have a directly elected leader, or mayor. I can see both sides of the argument and am genuinely agnostic. On the one hand, having a directly elected mayor could create, in one individual, a powerful voice for Cornwall; it could strengthen the accountability to local people in a more direct way, rather than have a model that relies heavily on a council chief executive. On the other side of the argument, however, the idea of a single individual representing the whole of Cornwall unsettles some of our Cornish sensibilities. We have a motto in Cornwall, “One and all”, but can this Cornish mindset based around the idea of shared endeavour be properly represented in a “One for all” system of democratic accountability? In addition, if we were to have lots of councillors from one party but a directly elected leader from another, or indeed from no party at all, would that create tensions and undermine good governance? This is therefore a significant decision for our councillors in Cornwall, and it is essential that all parties allow their councillors a free vote on the issue so that the advantages and disadvantages can be debated openly ahead of a final collective decision.

My contention today is that, whatever Cornwall eventually decides to do by way of structure of governance, it should nevertheless be granted an ambitious tier 3 devolution agreement. If having a mayoral system is such a powerful idea, it will carry the day irrespective of whether the Government dangle new money and new powers as an incentive. If it turns out not to be a good idea, however, the problems created might be more expensive than the perceived benefits of the deal.

I know that the Government seek to bring more clarity and consistency to local government structure, and I completely understand, for what we have now is something of a hotchpotch. But there are powerful reasons, rooted in centuries of history, for treating Cornwall as a special case, for Cornwall has a distinct and subtly different place within the British constitution. The nature and origins of this Cornish particularism are often misunderstood and sometimes even mocked by people “up country,” as we say, who do not know what they are talking about, but Cornwall is different. It has a highly Unionist tendency, sealed through the Crown down the centuries. Its geography as a peninsula gives it a self-reliance, and with that a resilience. Cornwall can occasionally be somewhat aloof, but it is only ever hostile to other parts of the country when deliberately provoked. It is eternally proud of its distinctiveness.

Historically, during Anglo-Saxon times, Cornwall was named “West Wales” and the links with Wales go back a long way. As we were recently reminded after the passing of Her late Majesty the Queen, it is also a constitutional rule that the eldest son of the monarch automatically assumes the title of Duke of Cornwall, and that has been the case down the ages. While there has been a more recent convention that future kings should first become Prince of Wales, it has always been more than a convention—it has been a constitutional rule—that future kings must first be the Duke of Cornwall.

In addition, the Duchy of Cornwall performs some of the functions that elsewhere fall to the Crown Estate. Until the 1700s there was a Cornish Stannary Parliament that had the power to veto certain English tax laws in Cornwall as part of a constitutional settlement to accommodate tin mining interests. Indeed, an attempt to disregard that settlement led to the Cornish rebellion of 1497. Finally, Cornwall was the only Royalist enclave in the south-west during the civil war and, had the Royalists won, it is likely that Cornwall would have been granted an administrative status similar to that of Wales.

The Kilbrandon report in the early 1970s acknowledged the distinctiveness of Cornwall and its unique status within our constitution, and suggested that it should be regarded as a duchy rather than just a normal county of England. A decade ago, this unique constitutional position was given modern expression when the coalition Government gave Cornwall special recognition, with the Cornish being acknowledged as a national minority under the European framework convention, alongside the Welsh, the Irish and the Scottish. In the best Cornish tradition, securing this recognition was a team effort, with cross-party support both within the council in Cornwall and here in this House. In those days, half the Cornish MPs were Conservative and the other half Lib Dem, and for once we agreed. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, I am grateful for the support that the Liberal Democrats have given these amendments, and let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that their party did at the time to secure that recognition. In particular, I remember that the former Liberal Democrat MP Dan Rogerson campaigned on the issue for several years.

My amendments draw on that recognition given a decade ago. New clause 70 states that, when making decisions about devolution deals, the Government must give special consideration to areas that contain a national minority covered by the framework convention. New clause 71 goes further and would require the Government to provide for regulations to grant a tier 3 devolution deal to areas covered by that framework convention.

Accepting these amendments would enable the Government to demonstrate that they take their commitments to the framework convention seriously. It would, of course, make Cornwall a special and unique case, which the Minister’s officials might consider untidy, but it was ever thus; throughout history Cornwall has had a unique place within the British constitution, and it is only right that this Cornish exceptionalism should continue. I therefore commend these two new clauses to the House.

24/11/2022
Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings.

The Public Bill Committee had 27 sittings over four months. The Government enjoyed it so much that they sent seven Ministers and three Whips to share the joy of line-by-line scrutiny. Which was my favourite? How could I choose between those 27 glorious sittings? They were very good debates, as the Minister said.

When it comes to levelling up, we have been clear from the outset that we feel the Bill is a missed opportunity. It ought to have been a chance for the Government finally to set out what their levelling-up agenda really is and what it means for the country. It was a chance to turn the rhetoric and all the press releases into reality. Instead of translating three years of promises into genuinely transformative change, we do not feel the Bill takes as much further forward. After the White Paper and now this Bill, we are still searching for the big, bold change for which the country is crying out and that the Government promised. The Bill has squandered that opportunity, and it seems those premises will be broken.

Levelling up is supposedly the defining mission of this Government but, after all the talk and all the promises, all they could muster was bolting a few clauses on to the front of a planning Bill. It serves no one to pretend that that is not the reality. Where is the plan to tackle entrenched regional inequalities? Where is the plan to unleash the wasted potential of our nations and regions? And where is the plan to get power out of Whitehall and into our towns, villages and communities?

Part 1 of the Bill establishes the levelling-up missions and the rules for reporting progress made against them. The missions are an area of consensus. Who in this House does not want to see a reduction in the disparities in healthy life expectancy, regional investment and educational outcomes? The problem is that, although the Government set out their supposed policy programme to deliver on these missions in their White Paper, it is in reality a mishmash of activity, much of which is already happening. We seek to improve this with amendment 10, as the missions should be accompanied by a full action plan setting out the activity taking place and how it will contribute to delivering the missions. I would hope that the Government already have such action plans, if levelling up really is such a totemic priority, but I fear they do not, because levelling up is not a priority.

Richard Graham

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a couple of times the important question of levelling up across the country. Does he accept that, under the last Labour Government, one of the biggest challenges for many of us was that, although huge amounts of money were funnelled into metropolitan cities, smaller cities in counties around the country completely missed out? A huge amount of progressive work has been done by this Government to ensure that constituencies such as mine in Gloucester do not miss out on the levelling-up programme.

Alex Norris

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, when we talk about levelling up, it should never be north versus south or London versus the rest of the UK, and that it should recognise that, across all communities, there are challenges and areas that need support. I think that is an area of consensus.

I stress that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the previous Labour Government, not the last Labour Government. I was at secondary school for much of that period, and I am not sure that relitigating it would advance this debate. I do not see that huge progressive changes have come through in the intervening 12 years, as he sees it, and I do not see them on the horizon either. Conservative Members may disagree with me on this point, which is fine, but if the Government are so sure of their case that this Bill will be very impactful, where is the impact assessment? Its publication is long overdue, and the stream of Ministers who came through the Committee all promised to publish it. It was signed off by the Regulatory Policy Committee on 19 July—what is that, four months ago?—but instead, it is hidden. What on earth does it say that it needs to be locked away in the Department, and what does it say about the Government that they are not brave enough to publish it?

We recognise that progress will not always be linear, and there will be times when reports—certainly the annual reports—into the missions may show a lack of progress or a need to operate differently. That will be challenging for the Government of the day, but it is an important part of the process, because that is how we will generate change. At the moment, however, the Bill states that these reports must be published within 120 days. There will be situations where the Government are not delivering on a mission and change is badly needed, but the report will be nearly a third of a year into the next year. We think that that is too late to generate meaningful change, so we seek with amendments 12 and 13 to reduce that to 30 days. I cannot believe that that is not sufficient. Surely, the reports are developed during the year, and a month ought to be enough to finish them off.

This is another key point of difference, because the sad reality is that rather than learning and reacting year by year to ensure that progress is made, the Government have an alternative plan. When they fail, they will simply change the mission, the methodology or the metrics. As set out in clause 4, they want to mark their own homework. With this clause, they are saying the quiet part out loud: that they will not deliver on these aims, and when they do not, they will just change them. That will not do. This was a serious promise made to the British public, and it ought to be kept. That is why we think that, as set out in amendment 14, this entire clause should be deleted. That is mirrored in amendment 11, where we have sought to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to discontinue a levelling-up mission. This is at best a ministerial convenience, but in reality a political crutch.

I listened carefully to the case made by the Minister—she is the Minister twice removed—for including these provisions, namely that unforeseeable events might mean that the Government of the day need such flexibility. I think that that is questionable, at best, but in the spirit of cross-party co-operation we have tabled amendment 64 as a compromise. That would mean that in genuinely unforeseen circumstances, Ministers could change the missions and their metrics, with the consent of a majority of this place and the other place. I would hope that that offers a happy medium. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, it tells us everything about the extent of their commitment to this agenda.

What we want the Government to do, and what they should want to do themselves, is to build confidence in their plans and their commitment to those plans, as set out in Amendment 8. Such Office for Budget Responsibility-style external, high-quality scrutiny would give the Government a real chance to demonstrate that their efforts are working and to help them change course where they are not. Similarly, amendment 15 would give this body the opportunity to comment on whether the levelling-up missions themselves are contributing to reducing geographical disparities. I think that that would be a real asset to the Government.

Resources are at the heart of the matter, and we want the Government to put to one side the rather bizarre spin that we saw at Monday’s departmental questions and be honest about the resources available for levelling-up, as we have suggested in amendment 9. This matters more than ever, which brings me to new clause 41. The Government’s inflation crisis is a serious risk to levelling-up as currently constituted and funded. The successful bids for round 1 of the levelling-up fund were announced more than a year ago, and the bids were designed a significant period of time before that. Clearly, much has changed since then. The previous Secretary of State confirmed to me in his single appearance at departmental questions that these bids can be downgraded to account for extra cost, and that is a serious concern. Local communities have entered into commitments in good faith, and expectations have been built up. They should not be hindered by the damage this Government have done to our economy; that is not good enough.

Similarly, round 2 bids were submitted before the Government drove the nation’s finances into a ditch at the mini-Budget. Either those bids will be downgraded, or fewer of them will be successful. I asked the Minister on Monday during departmental questions which it would be, but I did not get an answer. We should get that answer today, or—even better—the Government should accept new clause 41.

Finally on part 1, we welcome new clause 84, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). Literacy really ought to be at the heart of all we do.

I move now to provisions, amendments and clauses relating to part 2. Part 2 establishes combined county authorities. We are supportive of structures that allow for the greater devolution of power and resources from Whitehall to town hall. We also agree that it is desirable for there to be alignment with combined authorities more generally. Our concern in Committee was that we believe that these bodies and entities should receive powers from the centre, rather than absorbing powers from councils. That is why we tabled amendment 17. In line with what the Minister has said and what was set out in Friday’s written ministerial statement, we welcome Government amendment 29, which renders ours unnecessary. We are grateful that the Government have listened and moved on this point.

We do, however, want the establishment of CCAs to be as swift and painless as possible, and we have been told that Ministers intend to use guidance to ensure that that is the case. We think that that must happen promptly, and our amendment 18 calls for it to happen within six months. That is probably a reasonable timeframe, because we suspect that it has already been drafted. If that timeframe is not desirable, will the Minister at least say when she anticipates the production of the guidance?

I turn now to clause 58 and our amendment 19. The clause looks quite docile but is hugely significant. We have been told throughout proceedings that the purpose of part 2 of the Bill is for CCAs to mirror combined authorities, but this provision changes the rules governing combined authorities, and we do not think it has a place in the Bill. Currently, an elected Mayor can assume the police and crime commissioner role for their combined authority area if there is coterminosity and, crucially, if there is local agreement amongst constituent authorities. The clause changes that and states that the Mayor can assume these powers unilaterally. That is a significant and wholly unnecessary change.

In reality, virtually all combined authority Mayors either have PCC powers already, or cannot have PCC powers because of their boundaries. There is a tiny third category—indeed, I can only think of the one case in the West Midlands—where the Mayor does not have PCC powers but could do. The intention of the clause seems to be to change that. Eighteen months ago, the public voted for a Conservative Mayor and a Labour police and crime commissioner. That was their right, and their judgment must be respected. This clause allows Ministers to overreach and let the Mayor change that. That is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and delete the clause, which is an outlier in this Bill.

We are supportive of new clause 71, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would mean that all areas, with or without a Mayor, could access tier 3 devolution deals. The Opposition believe that all communities should have access to the maximum devolution of power and that governance arrangements should reflect local wishes. Currently, the Government will only give maximum powers if in return communities accept a Mayor, which is the Government’s preferred model. We are proud of our country’s Mayors. A significant number—I dare say a majority—are Labour and Co-operative ones, and they are very good indeed. We believe that those structures should reflect the choice of the local community, as set out in the new clause. I hope the Minister will look kindly on it.

Accordingly, we cannot support new clause 1, which will give the Secretary of State the unilateral right to impose a Mayor on local authorities that they deem to be failing. That would be an inversion of devolution, and we cannot support it.

I move on to parts 7, 8 and 9, to which we offered a significant number of amendments in Committee. In general terms, we are supportive of the provisions contained in part 7 concerning compulsory purchase. We believe that they are sensible and proportionate measures that will give local authorities clearer, more efficient and more effective powers; greater confidence that they can acquire land by compulsion to support regeneration schemes; and greater certainty that land can be assembled and schemes delivered quickly through compulsory purchase.

We also supported the Government new clause tabled in Committee concerning compensation in relation to hope value, on the grounds that it would help to expedite development in cases where a certificate of appropriate alternative development is unlikely to be awarded, and it would make many more such developments financially viable. We are grateful to have heard from the Minister in her opening remarks about where the Government might go next with that. We do not feel that there is a pressing need for the statutory review of the powers proposed in new clause 34, but we take no issue with new clause 66, which represents a sensible consolidation and modernisation of compulsory purchase law along the lines suggested by the Law Commission.

On part 8, we are very pleased to see the Government bring forward proposals for high street rental auctions. Sites that lie vacant on our high streets pull the area down. We need to get these sites into use, and rental auctions are a good way to do so. In Committee, we felt that there were too many loopholes in this process, so we are pleased to see and support Government amendments 40 to 44, which tighten matters. In reality, we want to go much further. We want a proper community right to buy important assets, high street or otherwise. It was disappointing that the Government rejected it in Committee, but the next Labour Government will correct that. More generally, it is regrettable that the Bill does not say more about community power, and that the Government have resisted all our efforts to insert community power provisions into the Bill. We may need a general election before we can resolve that.

On part 9, if we are to have effective use of land across all communities, we need to know who owns it so that they can be supported to use it. In extremis, we can use powers under parts 7 and 8. In Committee, we put a number of questions to Ministers that we do not think have quite been addressed yet. We hope that they will be answered in closing, but in broad terms we support the provision.

Finally, I turn to clause 190, relating to the Government’s proposed reintroduction of the Vagrancy Act 1824, notwithstanding Parliament’s repeal of the Act during proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Even by the low standards set by this Government this was a particularly shoddy affair. Putting aside the blatant disregard for this place, it shows a genuine lack of humanity and care for the most vulnerable. We are very pleased to see that efforts on both sides of the Chamber—I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in this regard—have borne fruit and that the Government now seek to remove this provision with Government amendment 1, which of course we support. But I hope that the Secretary of State does not seek credit in having belatedly supported this amendment given that this is his own Bill—his own provision. Similarly, we debated this in Committee only five weeks ago and at that point the Minister defended its inclusion; what does that say about the Government’s judgment in this matter?

I have one final question for the Minister. Thursday’s business statement programmed in next Monday for the second part of remaining stages on this Bill. There are not many well-kept secrets in Westminster and it is not a well-kept secret that that is not going to happen. Surely the Government are not running scared of their own Back Benchers on this; what is going on? Can we have clarity from the Minister that the Bill is coming back next week, because these are important provisions. The Minister says that if they are held up, it will affect the roll-out of devolution, which will be very bad. I hope we will get some clarity that the Government will step up and deliver on the promises they have made.

This Bill is a missed opportunity. Today, as in Committee, we have sought to help the Government improve it. I fear once again for our prospects in this regard, but that is because this Government are interested in the politics of levelling up, not the delivery of it for all of our nations and regions. This Government will never level up, and they should get out of the way for one who will.

24/11/2022
Dehenna Davison – 2022 Statement on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

The statement made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

It is a pleasure to be here for the next stage of this vital Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently set out his guiding principles for the Bill: beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhoods—or, for acronym fans, BIDEN. We want to ensure that people across the country have the opportunity to live and work in beautiful places, supported by the right infrastructure, with strong locally accountable leadership and with better access to an improved environment, all rooted in thriving neighbourhoods of which they can be proud. Regrettably, though, there are areas of the country that are long neglected and that will require a concerted effort from us all. We have to put an end to the shameful waste of potential that has held so many of our constituents and our country back for so long.

This is why the ambitions set out in the levelling up White Paper are so crucial. If we are going to achieve our ambitions, we have to be focused. That is why the first part of the Bill creates a self-renewing national focus on this endeavour, through the setting of and reporting on missions to level up. These missions, with their clear, measurable objectives, will drive the action needed to reduce geographic disparities. One such mission is our vision for devolution across England. This is why the Bill creates a new model for devolution: the combined county authority. It also improves existing models thought the combined authority and county deal models, making devolution easier to achieve, extend and deepen.

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

One of the disappointments with this Bill is that, although it extends the principle of combined authorities to county areas, it does not actually transfer any new powers to local government as a whole that are not currently available in some authorities. Could the Minister point out one place in the Bill where a new power that is currently not devolved to local government will be devolved after the Bill is passed?

Dehenna Davison

The Chair of the Select Committee is a passionate campaigner on these issues. He will know that the Government are incredibly keen on empowering local areas to take on their own devolution deals, and that is why we are in the process of negotiating a large number of deals, including trailblazer deals with Greater Manchester and with the West Midlands, which I know Members right across the House are incredibly passionate about. We are looking at new powers and new funding to ensure that those devolution deals deliver for local people.

We are making it easier to achieve, to extend and to deepen devolution. At the same time, the Bill is making it easier for local authorities to regenerate their areas by providing them with new and improved tools for that purpose, including a new locally led model for urban development corporations, changes to ensure that any former development corporation can have conferred on it the functions most useful to its purpose, and improvement to the compulsory system to remove barriers so that authorities can assemble land, including brownfield land.

Mr Betts

Often, when compulsory purchase powers are used by local authorities, the value of the site they are purchasing is enhanced because they are using those powers and the owner of the site gets a “hope value” addition to what they receive. Would the Minister consider ensuring that, where a CPO has been put in place, no extra value is generated for the owner because the CPO itself is operated or because it is part of a regeneration site as a whole?

Dehenna Davison

I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member in further detail following the debate today. It is certainly something that we are exploring behind the scenes with a view to taking action at a later date.

We are also looking at introducing discretion for local authorities to increase council tax on second homes and long-term empty homes, together with innovative high street rental auctions to tackle the damage that the gradual erosion of high street occupancy can cause.

Hon. Members will recall that the Government have already made provision for the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. As the Secretary of State has said, the Vagrancy Act is outdated and has to go. This Bill was introduced initially with a placeholder clause, allowing for a replacement to the Act to be added. During the passage of the Bill, however, we have listened to the depth of feeling from Members across the House, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has campaigned passionately on this issue. After working with Members across the House and having reflected on the right approach to the replacement legislation, I have tabled amendments to remove the placeholder clause. I can commit to the House that the Government will not bring forward any amendments to the Bill on this subject. We will, though, be working with the Home Office to make sure that the police and others have the tools they need to protect communities and ensure that people feel safe.

Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)

I absolutely welcome the Government’s action on this. Does the Minister agree that the best way to deal with the street population is through proper outreach and not through criminalising their behaviour?

Dehenna Davison

I completely agree with that sentiment. Any new legislation that may be introduced at a future date will not be looking to criminalise anyone for just being homeless. That is a firm commitment that I can make here today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look at the Government’s rough sleeping strategy as an example, and at the other ways we can outreach to ensure that those who find themselves homeless, often through no fault of their own, find the support they need to get back on their feet.

On vagrancy, my colleagues and I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House on our goal of ending rough sleeping and ensuring that people in need receive appropriate support to help them move away from life on the streets for good.

Strengthening our communities also means strengthening local leadership. We all know from our constituencies that Whitehall, however well intentioned, cannot always understand a community as well as the local people who live and work within it, so our ambition is for local areas to determine their own futures, allowing local leaders to take charge and enable their communities to thrive. We therefore want to offer the option of a devolution deal with a directly elected leader to every part of England that wants one by 2030, creating clear local leadership and greater accountability for any new powers conferred on them.

Members will recall that the Bill puts in place a framework to achieve this by creating a new model of combined authority—a combined county authority—which is more suitable for areas outside urban centres. This means that areas and communities everywhere, not just in major cities, can benefit from bespoke devolution deals that work for them. Providing these opportunities for all communities across England will increase innovation and enhance local accountability. This in turn will lead to more co-ordinated decision making with greater flexibility over funding, all of which will empower areas to attract more inward investment.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been grateful for the support that our reforms have attracted in our discussions with hon. Members and local areas, and Members will be aware that our devolution negotiations and conversations are continuing at pace. In the summer, we announced new devolution deals with York and North Yorkshire, and with parts of the east midlands: Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. There are more deals to be signed soon. Implementation of the east midlands deal is dependent on provisions in this Bill gaining Royal Assent and coming into effect, but they will of course be subject to statutory processes, including parliamentary approval of secondary legislation on creating new institutions with the devolved powers. The invaluable feedback from our discussions so far has allowed us to table three amendments today to put some matters beyond doubt.

John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)

The Minister is talking a lot about those areas where there is devolution already or where there is the potential for devolution, but what about those areas where there seems to be an absence of any discussions?

Dehenna Davison

As I say, we have discussions under way at the moment and we are looking ahead to which new devolution deals we can start exploring. I am certainly happy to work with my hon. Friend to see if this is something we can deliver in his local area in Cumbria, too.

Our first amendment relates to clause 16, which allows the conferral of local authority functions, including those of county councils, unitary councils and district councils, on to a combined county authority, or CCA.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this is of seminal importance to all second-tier councils around the country. I therefore welcome Government amendment 29. Can she confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that this means, as the explanatory statement suggests, that there is no question of the functions of a district council in a two-tier area being handled by a combined county authority and that, although it says

“a CCA may make provision”,

a CCA cannot make provision where there is a second-tier council?

Dehenna Davison

I can confirm that, and my hon. Friend pre-empts the next bit of my speech, which will hopefully provide some reassurance.

Clause 16 is essential to enable CCAs to be conferred with, for example, the economic development and regeneration functions of a council so that it can deliver them over a wider area, thus driving growth. Although it was never the Government’s intention, we have heard concerns from colleagues on both sides of the House, as well as from local authorities and the District Councils Network, that the clause could be used for the purpose of upward devolution. So there can be absolutely no doubt, we are explicitly precluding the conferral of two-tier district council functions on to a combined county authority. This amendment reflects the Government’s commitment that devolution legislation will not be used to reallocate functions between tiers of local government.

Government amendment 29 will still allow for combined county authorities to exercise functions with district councils concurrently or jointly, facilitating joint working on important issues where there is a local wish to do so. I hope that addresses the concern embodied in amendment 17, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is not currently in the Chamber.

Our second amendment provides for the effective co-ordination of highways infrastructure, to enable key route networks to operate effectively. Improving key route networks across towns and cities is a Government priority, and we want to facilitate the improvement of transport links as much as possible. The co-ordination of transport across the area of a combined authority or combined county authority is a tool that local leaders across the country have told us is valuable. We therefore propose an amendment to meet the commitment in the levelling-up White Paper to provide a new power of direction for Mayors and combined county authorities, to increase Mayors’ control over key route networks. This will enable them to better co-ordinate the delivery of highways infrastructure, which is needed for effective key route networks across the whole of their authority area.

Our third amendment is a small amendment to improve the partnership between police and crime commissioners and local leaders by clarifying legislation to ensure that PCCs can participate in local government committee meetings. Stronger partnership working between local leaders is central to the Government’s priority of ensuring that local voices are heard on important issues and that decision making is informed by a variety of perspectives in order to deliver our ambitions.

These three amendments add to the strong foundations the Bill already provides for devolution, by going further to solve the specific issues that areas face. In that spirit, I can announce that we will shortly be consulting on how houses in multiple occupation are valued for council tax purposes. The consultation, to be launched by January, will look at situations where individual tenants can, in certain circumstances, be landed with their own council tax bill and will consider whether the valuation process needs to change. Our clear intention is for HMOs to be classed as single dwellings, other than in exceptional circumstances.

Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)

It is important to look at the balance of council tax attributions for HMOs, but will the Minister confirm that any local authority that has such HMOs will have its council tax settlements adjusted, should a decision result in it making a net loss in such a situation?

Dehenna Davison

We will be consulting on this as a matter of urgency, and I am happy to take this away and to work with my hon. Friend to make sure we find a settled solution that works for local authorities.

If regulation is required, the measure will allow that regulation to be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for their campaign highlighting this issue, which I know affects other MPs. The Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting their local businessman, Mr Brewer, in the coming days.

Separately, I can confirm that, during the Bill’s passage in the other place, we intend to table amendments addressing circumstances in which authorities have to pay hope value when they compulsorily purchase land in an effort to regenerate their area.

Finally, we have also tabled amendments to make minor corrections and clarifications in support of high street rental auctions and compulsory purchase reforms. These amendments will ensure the policy objectives of these measures can be achieved in full.

Richard Graham

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I thank her and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team for listening so carefully to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House. What she says about new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is incredibly reassuring for people who are renting in HMOs. The ability to fine tune legislation is so precious.

Dehenna Davison

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his incredibly kind words.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for the constructive way in which they have engaged with this important Bill. I look forward to hearing their contributions to today’s debate, and I commend our amendments to the House.

24/11/2022
Anne McLaughlin – 2022 Speech on Disconnection of Pre-payment Meters

The speech made by Anne McLaughlin, the SNP MP for Glasgow North East, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require energy companies to allow a grace period before disconnecting customers with pre-payment meters who have run out of credit; to require energy companies to offer debt management support to all customers; and for connected purposes.

I pay my gas and electricity bills by standing order, and I pay in arrears. If I stop paying those bills, I can be disconnected by my supplier, but it is very much a final step and a last resort. Not so for those who pay in advance—that is, those on prepayment meters. Should they be unable to pay for gas or electricity, disconnection is the first thing that happens to them. The minute they go over the £10 of emergency credit applied to each prepayment meter, their supply stops and they are considered to have self-disconnected. We, as well-paid MPs, could run up hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pounds’ worth of debt to energy companies before they disconnect our supply, while those on prepayment meters will be left to freeze in the dark the minute they owe just £10. It is that iniquity that my Bill seeks to address.

There is more that I could have asked for in the Bill around the broader iniquity of the treatment of those on prepayment meters, but I decided to make it as easy and straightforward as possible. The Bill asks for one thing only: to put an end to those on prepayment meters being treated differently from those of us who enjoy the benefit of paying in arrears. My Bill asks for so-called self-disconnection to be stopped. I can think of no reason for any fair-minded person not to support that request. I am hopeful, verging on confident, that the Government will agree to it, but they need to act quickly. I cannot be standing here in a year’s time next winter talking about how we are nudging toward getting this resolved.

Call me impatient, but I know how slowly things often move in this place. I also know that the Government can move quickly when they need to. I contend that if I have to wait even until the new year, given the winter that has been predicted, I will have waited too long. More importantly, people on prepayment meters will have waited too long. It is not melodramatic or even an exaggeration to say that, if we do not deal with this urgently, I am afraid that people will die—people who would have lived had my Bill been adopted. All this when energy companies are raking in billions and bragging that they literally do not know what to do with their profits. Why is none of them leading the charge, instead of waiting for legislation possibly to get through? I am using this 10-minute rule Bill slot to challenge publicly just one of them to step forward and announce an end to the practice.

Let me give Members some background facts. We know that those on prepayment meters are generally on a low income. Some find it easier to budget if they can pay as they go, but most are given no choice. They struggle to pay their bills, so their energy supplier gains entry to their home and installs a prepayment meter. We also know that they pay more per unit of energy and higher daily standing charges than the rest of us, and they pay in advance while the rest of us pay in arrears. Normally, advance payments attract discounts, but that is not so for those on prepayment meters.

We know from the low uptake of pension credit that pensioners are often the last to reach out and ask for help. That means that many of them are existing on far less than the Government believe that they need, and many of those people are on prepayment meters. Caroline Abrahams of Age UK recently said that, for an older person, being cold

“even for just a short amount of time can be very dangerous as it increases the risk of associated health problems and preventable deaths during the winter.”

We simply cannot let pensioners self-disconnect this winter. They must be treated at least equally to MPs when it comes to the right to be warm. The right to be treated equally is crucial, because the only arguments that I have heard against the proposal are that people could end up in debt and that they might simply not bother to pay their bills. On the latter point, I would argue very strongly that those on prepayment meters are no more likely simply not to bother to pay their bills than those of us paying by different methods.

It is a risk that stopping self-disconnection could lead to people being in debt, but to that I would say two things. First, if the rest of us, paying by different methods, are allowed to take the risk of ending up in debt and are trusted to find ways to resolve it without being cut off, why not those on prepayment meters? Secondly, at the end of the day, if anyone in the Chamber were asked to choose between debt or death for their constituent, who among us would not choose debt as the lesser of two evils? That may sound dramatic, but life is very dramatic and unpredictable at the moment, and our constituents’ lives will be at risk.

I ask whichever MP will be on duty to shout “Object!” to my Bill on Second Reading to prevent it from going any further, as is common practice—unless they are planning to do it today—to be aware of the choice that they are making for their constituents on prepayment meters. We all have many such constituents. The last figures that we can access tell us that almost 4.2 million people are on prepayment meters. In Glasgow, there are almost 67,000, but even in the Prime Minister’s local authority there are more than 1,000 and in your local authority, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sure that you know this—the figure is 16,596. Those figures were last published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in 2019, so we do not have an exact number, but clearly the numbers are rising. Figures from Ofgem comparison website Uswitch recently revealed that 60,000 new prepayment meters were installed across the UK in the six months to March. Does it not seem perverse that as energy prices and energy company profits soar, poor and vulnerable people are being forced on to more expensive methods of paying for that energy?

I recently had a meeting with the Simon Community, one of the leading homelessness organisations in Scotland. It told me that many of the people it has been supporting to get off the streets and into a tenancy have found their new-found optimism to be short lived when they face the problem of being on a prepayment meter. The warmth and comfort that has eluded them for so long is again taken away when they run out of money, as many do because, having been homeless and having lived without an address, and for some having battled health problems, many are not yet in employment, or certainly not in well-paid employment. In no time, they are back to square one. According to the Simon Community, people have been walking the streets to keep warm. What an utterly ridiculous and cruel situation.

Who else will have their lives put at risk if energy companies do not stop the practice? Perhaps most disturbing of all is the case of those whose life expectancy has already been curtailed. I am talking about those who are terminally ill. When the Bill appeared on the Order Paper, I was contacted by Marie Curie, which as many colleagues will know has a campaign called “Dying in poverty”. It has been telling MPs about the additional costs incurred by the use of vital medical equipment such as breathing devices. It told me that the average cost of an electricity bill can rise by 75% for someone who is terminally ill. That is bad enough, but for someone on a prepayment meter, so-called self-disconnection really becomes life threatening.

In addition, people often find when they return home after a lengthy stay in hospital or a hospice that they have a huge bill to pay before they can access electricity because, despite not being at home, the daily standing charges have mounted up and the meter will take that money first. How can we do that to people? I ask that without apportioning blame politically, because I do not believe that anyone in this place would intend that to happen or try to justify it. I said earlier that I was feeling hopeful, verging on confident, that the Government would listen and act. I am usually very critical of the Government but I simply do not believe that they would wish this on any of our constituents. Nor do I believe that they would knowingly allow anyone, and certainly not pensioners, people who have been homeless and those who are already dying, to suffer in such a way when they and I, as well-paid MPs and Government Ministers, with no excuse to run up debts, would none the less be allowed to do so and thus keep our homes warm, simply because we pay in a different way.

I often criticise the Government for their lack of action on equalities, but this is a very stark inequality on which I believe they will agree with me. I reiterate that my Bill asks for one thing only: for those on prepayment meters to have equal treatment to that of all other bill payers when it comes to disconnection. I want an end to so-called self-disconnection. It is cruel, dangerous and will end the lives of our constituents prematurely if we do not stop it. But we can stop it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Anne McLaughlin, Craig Whittaker, Sally-Ann Hart, Alison Thewliss, Alan Brown, Stuart C. McDonald, Jeremy Corbyn, Liz Saville Roberts, Colum Eastwood, Kate Osborne, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Stewart Malcolm McDonald present the Bill.

Anne McLaughlin accordingly presented the Bill.

24/11/2022
Angela Rayner – 2022 Article on the Personal Conduct of Michelle Mone

Part of the article written by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the Guardian on 24 November 2022.

We learn that PPE Medpro was given £203m to supply face masks and sterile surgical gowns at the height of the pandemic. Lady Mone, a Tory peer, referred PPE MedPro to the Cabinet Office in May 2020, five days before it was even registered as a company. She contacted the then ministers Michael Gove and fellow Conservative peer Lord Agnew, offering to supply PPE – for a price. Lord Agnew referred PPE Medpro to the “VIP lane”, fast-tracking the bid for public contracts.

It now appears that tens of millions of pounds from those contracts ended up in offshore accounts connected to the individuals involved.

24/11/2022
Rachael Maskell – 2022 Parliamentary Question about York and Asylum Seekers

The parliamentary question asked by Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

It is not just local authorities that need consultation, but the NHS. In York, 80 internationally recruited nurses have been displaced as a result of the Mears Group block-booking their hotel. The nurses were also sitting exams at a crucial time for their entry into the NHS. Some 150 more NHS nurses were due to be in that hotel. It is now costing the NHS at least £10 per nurse per night to try to accommodate them elsewhere. Can the Minister explain why they cannot remain in that hotel? Will he talk to the NHS to ensure that this does not happen again?

Robert Jenrick

I have spoken to the Minister with responsibility for secondary care about the broader issue of doctors, nurses and other clinicians staying in hotel accommodation and how we can have better communication between local NHS trusts, local authorities and the Home Office when hotels are procured, so I hope we will be able to improve processes and ensure it does not happen in future.

24/11/2022
Matt Warman – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Skegness and Asylum Seekers

The parliamentary question asked by Matt Warman, the Conservative MP for Boston and Skegness, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)

There are now five hotels in Skegness occupied by asylum seekers and a further one in my constituency. I thank the Minister, and indeed the Home Secretary, for the engagement he has had with me ahead of what he knows will be a public meeting on Friday with a very concerned local community. I wonder if he could say what his message would be for that public meeting.

Robert Jenrick

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and wish him well with that meeting. We want to ensure that we exit hotels as swiftly as possible, and I set out in answers to other hon. Members how we will do that. I appreciate the burden that this is placing on his constituency and I hope the increase in engagement from the Home Office and its partners will ensure a better and more fruitful relationship with his local authorities.

24/11/2022
George Howarth – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Using Hotels in Knowsley for Asylum Seekers

The parliamentary question asked by Sir George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: the Home Office has not covered itself in glory. In January, I was informed 24 hours earlier that 150 asylum seekers would be relocated to a hotel in Knowsley. Unfortunately, the Home Office notified the wrong local authority about what was about to happen—although, to be fair, it did apologise. There are now 180 asylum seekers in that hotel. I was told that it was initially only going to be for three months. It is now over 10 months. Can the Minister give me some indication of when that arrangement will end? It has already massively exceeded the prediction of how long it would be.

Robert Jenrick

I would be very happy to get back to the right hon. Gentleman and set out in detail the strategy for hotels and accommodation in his constituency. My approach has been: first, to ensure that Manston is brought to a legal and decent situation as quickly as possible—I think we are broadly there—secondly, to move to good-quality engagement with local authorities while we are still in a difficult and challenging situation; and thirdly, to move to a point where we are not relying on hotels at all, or doing so very judiciously, but accommodating people in dispersal accommodation or larger sensible sites. I am afraid that will take us some time because, as I have said in previous answers, there has been a failure to plan for accommodation over a sustained period. We need to correct that now.

24/11/2022
Philip Hollobone – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Royal Hotel in Kettering

The parliamentary question asked by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

I believe that the situation is now so bad and chaotic that the Minister should consider his position.

On Friday, North Northampton Council, Northants police and other local agencies had an online meeting with the Home Office and Serco regarding the potential use of the 51-bed Royal hotel in Kettering, slap bang in the middle of the town centre. Serious environmental health issues, including mould and no kitchen facilities, were raised. Northants police raised serious concerns about community safety and the vulnerability of the asylum seekers. The Home Office and Serco officials agreed that the hotel would not be used until those issues were properly addressed. Yesterday, the council was advised that 41 asylum seekers had been moved into the hotel on Sunday afternoon, without any notification at all, and that could rise to 80. No biometric of previous offending history data has been shared with the local police. It is totally, 100% unacceptable.

On 27 October, I asked the Minister face to face for a meeting. I asked him again on the Floor of the House last Wednesday. No such meeting has been forthcoming. This is a wrong-headed decision. The local police, the local council and I have been misled, and I have no confidence at all that the Home Office, Serco or the Minister have the first clue what they are doing in relation to asylum seeker relocation.

Robert Jenrick

I will be happy to make some inquiries and come back to my hon. Friend.

24/11/2022