UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Luke Hall – 2020 Statement on the Troubled Families Annual Report

    Luke Hall – 2020 Statement on the Troubled Families Annual Report

    Below is the text of the statement made by Luke Hall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), today my Department has published the fourth annual report, setting out how the Troubled Families Programme (2015-20) has been supporting our most disadvantaged families who face multiple and complex problems. We are laying this report today and will place a copy in the House of Commons Library. There has been a slight delay to the publication of the report, due on 31 March, as my Department focused on the emergency response to the covid-19 pandemic.

    The Troubled Families Programme has been at the heart of our ambition to strengthen families and improve their futures since 2015. This year’s annual report details the programme’s performance for the period up to the end of March 2020, outlines the changes introduced for the 20-21 financial year to allow more families to be eligible for support, and clarifies how their progress towards outcomes will be measured. The report was drafted before the covid-19 pandemic so does not reflect the ongoing response from local government to support families during this unprecedented time.​

    Improving families’ lives: fourth annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2019-20 details how the programme is driving a profound shift in the way that local services respond to entrenched problems and support our most disadvantaged families. Assigning a single key worker to each family, backed by multi-agency partners and co-ordinated data, this joined up “wrap-around” support works with whole families to tackle the range of issues they face.

    Over the lifetime of the programme, local authorities have supported 350,105 families to achieve successful outcomes, including 30,000 adults who were helped into sustained employment, although the programme has worked with many more families. These families faced multiple and complex problems including a combination of crime, truancy, neglect, antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse, poor mental health, worklessness and financial exclusion. Every successful family outcome represents a family’s life changed for the better—a considerable achievement for the families and the local authorities supporting them.

    Analysis to track family outcomes over time, and case study research, indicates that the programme delivered successful outcomes by intervening early to prevent escalation to children’s social care. Analysis found that for every £1 spent on the programme it delivers £2.28 of economic benefits (includes economic, social and fiscal benefits) and £1.51 of fiscal benefits (only budgetary impacts on services).

    Analysis also suggests that the programme is reducing the probability of future interaction with the criminal justice system, and the severity of offending, for adults and juveniles who had been convicted or given a custodial sentence before they joined the programme.

    The Troubled Families Programme has received new investment to extend the programme for an additional year. The additional Government funding of £165 million will enable the current programme to continue until the end of 2020-21.

    The refreshed financial framework for 2020-21 was published on 14 May 2020 and sets out the expanded eligibility criteria and an explanation of the way in which local authorities should identify and support families using a range of indicators.

    “Improving families’ lives: fourth annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2019-2020” is accompanied by a range of publications that evaluate the programme’s progress which can be accessed at: www.gov.uk.

    These are:

    Analysis of national and local data sets: part five.

    Staff Surveys—Troubled Families Co-ordinators: part four.

    Staff Surveys—Troubled Families Keyworkers: part four.

    Staff Surveys—Troubled Families Employment Advisors: part four.

    Case Study Research: part four.

    Family Survey additional analysis.

  • Luke Hall – 2020 Statement on Rough Sleeping and Covid-19

    Luke Hall – 2020 Statement on Rough Sleeping and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Luke Hall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Government have worked closely with local authorities, charities and health providers to offer accommodation to as many rough sleepers as possible in order to help them stay safe during the pandemic.

    We have asked all local authorities to provide information on the number of individuals they have accommodated. The information provided is management information, not official statistics, and local authorities continue to hold the most recent information.

    This information submitted shows that since the start of the pandemic, local authorities have accommodated 14,610 people. This includes people coming in directly from the streets, people previously housed in shared night shelters and people who have become vulnerable to rough sleeping during the pandemic.

    This is a truly remarkable achievement and has been possible because of an incredible effort by the Government, local authorities and charities.​

    In order to be transparent, we have today published the management information received from local authorities which provides a breakdown of this figure both inside and outside of London.

    This number should not be compared to the official autumn annual snapshot of rough sleeping numbers because the data sets are not comparable. A significant proportion of the 15,000 people accommodated were not rough sleepers but have been housed in order to prevent any risk of them sleeping rough during the pandemic. The work local authorities have undertaken during the pandemic has assisted many who were sleeping rough or living in accommodation where they share sleeping spaces, for example in hostels or night shelters, where they would not be able to fully self-isolate. Local authorities have also housed those at risk of rough sleeping, or who have presented to local authorities as at risk of sleeping rough throughout this pandemic.

    The Government have supported this vital work with £3.2 million emergency funding as an initial first step, followed by funding totalling £3.2 billion to local authorities to allow them to meet local need during the pandemic, including protecting the most vulnerable and rough sleepers.

    We have also announced a further £433 million to provide 6,000 long-term, safe homes to support thousands of rough sleepers currently housed in emergency accommodation move on to more sustainable accommodation.

    The Government are now supporting local authorities on their next steps plans to ensure accommodation arrangements can continue to be managed safely to protect the most vulnerable, assessing individuals’ needs in order to ensure as few people as possible return to the streets. We have asked Dame Louise Casey to spearhead this work through a new covid-19 Rough Sleeping Taskforce.

  • Wendy Morton – 2020 Statement on Voting Rights Treaty with Poland

    Wendy Morton – 2020 Statement on Voting Rights Treaty with Poland

    Below is the text of the statement made by Wendy Morton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020.

    I can confirm that the Government reached a bilateral agreement with Poland on 29 May that will secure the right to stand in local elections for UK Nationals living in Poland, and Polish citizens living in the UK. This agreement builds on our close ties and reinforces our commitment to the future relationship between our two nations.

    Citizens continue to be our priority following our departure from the EU. The UK pushed hard in negotiations to protect the right to stand and vote in local elections for UK Nationals living in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK, but these rights were not included in the withdrawal agreement. Instead, we have secured bilateral arrangements with several individual member states. In addition to Poland, we signed voting rights treaties in 2019 with Spain, Portugal, and Luxembourg.

    UK Nationals will be able to continue to vote, and in some cases stand, in local elections in member states where domestic legislation allows this, and where individuals meet the relevant requirements, for example on length of residency. These member states include: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

    I will be laying a copy of the latest agreement in both Houses.

  • Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on Prisons and Covid-19

    Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on Prisons and Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    I am today announcing the Government’s plans for how Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will start to recover from the impact of covid-19.

    I want to first pay tribute to the hard-working staff across the country who have continued to deliver essential services in spite of the virus. They have been striving tirelessly to make sure those in their care are safe and the public is protected.

    The Government have introduced strong measures to save lives and protect the NHS, including reducing face-to-face interactions in both prison and probation, minimising transfers between establishments, shielding the vulnerable, quarantining new entrants to prison and making greater use of technology to enable family contact and supervise offenders in the community.

    As a result of the success of these measures, we are formulating plans for how these restrictions can be cautiously rolled back over the coming weeks and months. This will happen within overarching frameworks for prisons and probation which have been published today. These decisions will be guided by public health advice and the best available data.

    In prisons there will not be a simple easing of restrictions across the estate but national guidance will ensure there is consistency in decision making by governors. That means establishments will progress at their own speed, taking full account of their specific circumstances.​

    We know it will not be a straightforward return to normality. As the Prime Minister has set out, the whole country now needs to prepare for an extended period of living with and managing the threat from the virus.

    But over the coming weeks and months, we will restart aspects of daily prison life, such as social visits, education and work, and face-to-face probation supervision, including unpaid work and accredited programmes, with adaptations where necessary to ensure safety.​

    We will continue to closely monitor the situation, and only proceed once it is safe to do so. Should restrictions need to be re-imposed to ensure the safety of staff and those in our care we will not hesitate to do this.

    During this time, we will continue with measures such as providing additional temporary accommodation, and making careful use of our end of custody temporary release powers, to ensure we are able to manage the possibility of any future outbreaks.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Grenfell Tower

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on Grenfell Tower

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    On 30 October 2019 phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which focused on how the fire started and spread and the emergency response, concluded with the publication of the phase 1 report. In January 2020 the Government reaffirmed the acceptance, first given on the day of publication, to accept in principle all the recommendations that Sir Martin Moore-Bick made for central Government in that report.

    Six months on from the publication of the Government response to the phase 1 report, I would like to update Parliament on Government progress at turning our commitments into real and lasting change to building and fire safety.

    The Grenfell fire was an unimaginable tragedy that must never be allowed to happen again. Even in these unprecedented times, the Government commitment to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations, as a priority, remains unchanged. As does the Government commitment to ensuring those most affected, the bereaved and survivors—who have displayed such remarkable courage, resilience and dignity—continue to be engaged in discussions about policy development.

    Ban on the use of combustible materials

    The inquiry’s report was clear that the use of aluminium composite material (ACM) rainscreen cladding and combustible insulation on the exterior of the tower was the defining factor in the rapid spread of the fire. The Government introduced regulations in December 2018 that banned the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of specific types of new high-rise buildings. A public consultation was held between January and May 2020, to further explore and refine the scope ​of that ban, including a proposal to ban the use of ACM with unmodified polyethylene core and similar materials on all buildings in England. We are analysing feedback and will be publishing a response in due course.

    Remediation

    Since the Grenfell Tower fire, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Home Office (HO) have identified over 450 buildings with unsafe ACM cladding, and we have worked with local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to ensure that appropriate interim safety measures are in place, while these buildings undergo remediation.

    In March this year the Government announced that they will provide £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems. This is in addition to the £600 million which Government have made available for remediation of the highest risk ACM cladding. The prospectus for this fund was launched last month and sets out the buildings and non-ACM cladding systems that are eligible for funding; and registration is now open for potential applicants, in advance of the full application process opening by the end of July 2020. More information on the fund prospectus can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/remediation-of-non-acm-buildings#prospectus%E2%80%94outlining-eligibility-for-the-fund.

    This fund will meet the cost of remediating unsafe non-ACM cladding systems where building owners or other entities legally responsible for making buildings safe, are unable to do so. Government are also providing additional, specialist project management capability to building owners or managing agents to speed up the development and implementation of building plans.

    The fire protection board

    The Government have also established a fire protection board, chaired by the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), to provide greater assurance to central Government of fire and rescue service protection activity. The board is leading a building risk review programme, supported by Government funding to ensure that all high-rise residential buildings of 18 metres or above are inspected or reviewed by the end of 2021. We are also using a proportion of the additional £20 million secured for fire and rescue services in the recent Budget to further support an uplift in protection capability.

    Stay put

    At the end of last year, a joint HO and MHCLG steering group was set up to support a technical review of stay put. There are three strands to this work: an evidence review, assessing academic evidence on methods of evacuation; operational research to test evacuation strategies; and building design research. The first stage of this work has been commissioned and is underway while preliminary work is being carried out on the other strands.

    Building safety

    At the heart of the Government radical reforms of building safety is the new building safety regulator, which we are establishing within the Health and Safety Executive. The Government set out plans in our response to the “Building a Safer Future” consultation for the biggest change in building safety for a generation.​

    The new regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing a more stringent regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings, as well as providing wider and stronger oversight of safety and performance across all buildings and increasing the competence of those working on building safety. This work complements the establishment of a new construction products regulatory role to strengthen national oversight and effectively enforce the new regulatory regime.

    The Government will soon be publishing the draft Building Safety Bill for scrutiny before it is introduced in Parliament. This Bill will put in place this new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and ensure residents have a stronger voice.

    In April, the Government published a workplan detailing the next steps for the wider review of approved document B, following the technical review that was started in December 2018. Research will be carried out in areas such as means of escape, compartmentation and toxicity. This work will build on the changes we have published in an update to approved document B last month, so that sprinklers and wayfinding signage will be provided in all new blocks of flats above 11 metres. The Government are also working with the NFCC on further tests of evacuation with a view to including guidance on provision of these systems in a later update to approved document B.

    Fire Safety Bill

    The inquiry’s phase 1 report also called for new duties on building owners and managers to share technical information with fire and rescue services and undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors. It is our intention to take forward these recommendations for existing buildings under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 underpinned by the changes being introduced through the Fire Safety Bill.

    The Fire Safety Bill, which was introduced in March and received cross-party support, clarifies that the scope of the Fire Safety Order covers external walls, including cladding and balconies, and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. It provides a firm foundation upon which to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the recommendations that require further changes to the law. The Bill is a significant further step to ensure better identification and management of fire safety risks in such buildings.

    It is important that the Government response to the inquiry’s recommendations has the support of those with experience in these matters, and those most affected by them. To ensure their views inform our response, a public consultation will be issued soon setting out the Government’s proposed approach to the remaining recommendations that call for legislative change.

    Fire and rescue services

    Many of the recommendations within the inquiry’s phase 1 report were directed at non-Government organisations that are equally committed to the reforms. The report was clear that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) must learn and change to restore public confidence. Our request for regular progress reports from the LFB setting out how it is translating the recommendations into action are a key part of retaining focus and momentum on the need for change.​

    There remains much to do, but the HO is already seeing a commitment to revised policy and procedures backed up by the use of better equipment and technology to support high-rise fire-fighting and fire-fighting in London more broadly. The pandemic has created many challenges, but it has not affected the LFB’s commitment to implementing the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations.

    It is important that the lessons from Grenfell are learned beyond London. This is why the NFCC is working to ensure that the phase 1 recommendations are implemented across all fire and rescue services. The HO is working closely with the NFCC on an improvement plan to help it drive real change across the sector.

    In the three years since the Grenfell Tower fire, the Government have remained steadfast in its commitment to driving forward both cultural and legislative change so that no such tragedy can ever be allowed to happen again. Through implementation of the reforms highlighted in this statement, and wider work of Government and our stakeholders, we will move from the conditions that allowed a tragedy like the fire at Grenfell Tower to occur almost three years ago, to a system which ensures developers and building owners demonstrate greater responsibility for the safety of residents and which allows local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to enforce this. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring all residents are safe in their homes, now and in the future.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on NHS Test and Trace

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on NHS Test and Trace

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    On 28 May the NHS Test And Trace service was introduced across England. This forms a central part of the Government’s covid-19 recovery strategy to help as many people as possible return to life as close to normal as possible, in a way that is safe and protects our NHS and social care.

    The objective of the NHS Test And Trace service is to push down and keep low the rate of reproduction (R) of covid-19 and reduce the total number of infected people by catching cases before they spread the virus. It brings together testing, contact tracing and outbreak management into an end-to-end service.

    The roll-out of the NHS Test And Trace service has been made possible by the rapid expansion of testing. The largest network of diagnostic testing facilities in British history has been created and now has the capacity to carry out 200,000 tests a day. This includes 50 drive-through sites, more than 100 mobile testing units and three mega laboratories. Everyone in England is now eligible for a test if they have covid-19 symptoms. These symptoms are: a new, continuous cough; or a high temperature; or a loss of, or change in, normal sense of smell or taste.

    The NHS Test And Trace service uses a combination of 25,000 dedicated contact tracing staff, local public health experts and an online service to trace the contacts of anyone who tests positive for covid-19. The NHS covid-19 app, which will further extend the speed and reach of contact tracing, will be rolled out nationally in the coming weeks as part of the NHS Test And Trace service.

    On 22 May we announced £300 million of new funding for local authorities in England to work with NHS Test And Trace to develop local outbreak control plans. These plans will focus on identifying and containing potential outbreaks in places such as workplaces, housing complexes, care homes and schools, ensuring testing ​capacity is deployed effectively and helping vulnerable people who are self-isolating access essential services in their area.

    Anyone who tests positive for coronavirus is contacted by NHS Test and Trace and asked to share information about their recent interactions. This could include household members and people with whom they have been in direct contact or within 2 metres for more than 15 minutes. People identified as having been in close contact with someone who has had a positive test must stay at home for 14 days, even if they do not have symptoms, to stop unknowingly spreading the virus.

    Those who need to self-isolate will be informed about local support networks if they need practical, social or emotional support. They will also have access to the same financial support available to those who have to self-isolate because they or another member of their household have symptoms or have tested positive for covid-19. This includes access to statutory sick pay, subject to normal eligibility conditions.

    The public will have a key role to play in making this service a success. They will need to report covid-19 symptoms, book tests, help to identify recent close contacts, and self-isolate for at least seven days if they have covid-19, and for 14 days after they were in contact with the person who tested positive for covid-19 if they are identified as a close contact by NHS Test and Trace.

    We have put in place a comprehensive media campaign to increase public awareness of the NHS Test and Trace service, what it is, why it is important and what the public need to do. This includes TV, radio, video on demand, posters, digital display and social media.

    We are working closely with the devolved Administrations and public health agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure an aligned approach to testing and tracing across the United Kingdom where possible.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2020 Statement on Reopening Schools

    Gavin Williamson – 2020 Statement on Reopening Schools

    Below is the text of the statement made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    This week, we have been able to take the first, cautious step towards getting children and young people back in education. In line with many other countries this is being done with a phased approach. As the Prime Minister confirmed on 28 May, the Government’s five tests are being met and all nations in the UK are beginning to ease the lockdown restrictions.

    Based on all the evidence, in England this means that nurseries and other early years providers, including childminders, are now able to welcome back children of all ages. Primary schools are able to welcome back pupils in reception, year 1 and year 6, in smaller class sizes, alongside children of critical workers and vulnerable children of all ages who will continue to be able to attend.

    We recognise that schools and nurseries need time to plan and to implement the strict protective measures we have asked them to put in place. We are continuing to work with the sector to ensure any schools experiencing difficulties are supported to welcome more children and young people back as soon as possible.

    From 15 June, secondary schools and further education providers are being asked to provide face-to-face support for years 10 and 12, and 16-to-19 learners in the first year of a two-year study programme, who are due to take key exams next year. This support will supplement their remote education, which will continue to be their main method of education during this term. As the scientific evidence indicates numbers need to continue to be limited, we are asking that only a quarter of this cohort should attend at any one time to limit the risk of transmission. Children of critical workers and vulnerable children in all year groups will continue to be able to attend full time.

    The Department for Education has published detailed guidance for settings on how to prepare.

    We continue to follow the best scientific advice and believe that this cautious, phased return is the most sensible course of action to take. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government will continue to monitor the rate of transmission carefully and will not hesitate to reintroduce restrictions on a local or regional basis if required.

    I continue to be immensely grateful for the response of all those in working in education, childcare and children’s social care during this challenging time.

  • Simon Clarke – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Simon Clarke – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Clarke, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for raising this issue and I congratulate her on securing this much-delayed debate. I also want to thank her and indeed, hon. Members across the House because this is an issue that I receive a lot of representations about on a daily basis. It is something that I am keenly aware needs resolving, and Members across the House are firm in their view that action is necessary on the regulation of the private parking industry.

    Too often, our constituents are treated poorly at the hands of parking firms, and I know that many of my constituents in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland feel the same. The clear cross-party support for the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act 2019 was therefore hugely encouraging, and I am pleased that, through the Act the Government are giving motorists greater protection against bogus parking fines and clamping down on rogue operators.

    Self-regulation in the private parking sector has led to some undesirable practices, including misleading or confusing signage, aggressive debt collection, spiralling fees and opaque appeals services, and we heard some of that in the case of my right hon. Friend’s constituent, Mr Hindle. Members see in our postbags the effect that these poor practices have on people in our communities. They include the motorist who made a genuine and minor error entering their vehicle registration number into a machine and received £100 fine in the post; the driver who entered a car park on a busy day and could not park due to lack of spaces but got a ticket regardless because the camera assumed they had parked; the car park with signs that are impossible to read, subject to terms and conditions which are difficult to understand or which change without proper notice. Letters from motorists and even from MPs have gone unanswered by parking companies, although it does sound as though the hon. Lady has a staffer who will not be defeated by such tactics.

    These practices are unfair and not good enough. The private parking industry plays a crucial role in our transport infrastructure, from facilitating commutes every ​morning to making our high streets accessible for shoppers and those accessing vital services. It employs thousands of people and serves millions of customers every day in normal times. We understand its importance, and that is why this Government are taking action to crack down on rogue firms, protect motorists and raise standards across the sector. With that in mind, I am pleased to update Members on the progress of our action after the passing of the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and we are actively delivering on our 2017 manifesto commitment to tackle rogue parking operators.

    The Act provided for the creation of an independent code of practice for private parking companies and a one-stop shop for parking appeals, and our new code will ensure that enforcement and appeal processes are fair and proportionate. It will bring consistency, creating a level playing field across the industry, and it will benefit motorists, operators and landowners alike. If a parking company were to repeatedly break the code, its access to DVLA data could be blocked, and this data includes information on the vehicle keeper, so a company blocked from accessing it would be effectively unable to pursue parking charges. Blocking rogue operators in this manner will grant motorists greater protection against companies not delivering the standards that the Government and the public would expect.

    We have taken steps to ensure that the code is not only reflective of the issues that we want to address but is informed by outside experts. On 3 November last year, the Government announced that the British Standards Institution would write the code in consultation with consumer and industry groups and carry out a full consultation once the draft was ready. The BSI is widely regarded as expert in regulatory delivery and has a proven track record of working with Government. Developing the code of practice as a British standard is thus a guarantee that the new regulation will be robust and of the highest quality, and the Government’s choice of BSI also delivers on our promise to listen to industry and consumers and involve them in the design of the new regulation. BSI’s process for developing new British standards involves reaching a consensus for a range of key stakeholders and seeking a wide array of views through a full public consultation. That will help to ensure that the code is entirely comprehensive.

    I assure my right hon. Friend that, working in conjunction with the BSI, it is a priority to ensure that this code addresses the most significant and recurring issues that consumers deal with.

    Jim Shannon

    I welcome what the Minister has outlined for the right hon. Lady. I think it is exactly what we want to hear in this House, but when it comes to monitoring and checking, will the changes in the pipeline be enforced by locals councils, the police or another independent body?

    Mr Clarke

    It would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. In this case, he raises a really significant point. We need to make sure that these regulations have teeth. The deterrent lies in the fact that repeat offenders will find themselves unable to access the DVLA database and so it will in effect be self-policing.​
    In November, we announced that the Government would propose that the code considers a mandatory requirement to give all drivers the 10 minute grace period, which my right hon. Friend referred to, after their tickets expire. This will be a common-sense measure to ensure that drivers are not unfairly penalised for trying to do the right thing.

    Caroline Nokes

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He was very specific then about a 10-minute grace period after a ticket had expired. Will it also include a 10-minute grace period in the circumstance that he himself identified where somebody perhaps drives into a car park and finds that there are no spaces, or that it is too expensive?

    Mr Clarke

    I confess that, given the code is in draft, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will write to my right hon. Friend, as she would expect, to clarify. I suspect that it will make good sense for it to do so in practice, but I will not presume to prejudge what the independent regulation may eventually come up with.

    I also want to address issues raised about debt collection, because it cannot be fair that a hard-working family is prevented from obtaining a mortgage because a small breach of a car park’s terms and conditions led to a county court judgment that, as my right hon. Friend refers to, can have such serious consequences, especially if it is sent to an old address. I have seen constituency cases of that nature. We are proposing that the code considers new protections for consumers, and looks at extra measures to crack down on intimidating and aggressive debt collection practices. We will also look at the appeals system, because this is a particularly significant issue. There are two appeals services in the private parking sector. Both have their own processes and procedures and different rates at which parking charges are overturned at appeal. Which appeals service a motorist has access to depends not on their choice or the nature of the alleged breach of contract, but simply on which trade association the operator happens to belong to. That cannot be fair and is at odds with natural justice, which is why it is the Government’s stated position that we intend to appoint a single appeals service for the entire industry, giving motorists the ability to challenge unfair charges.

    Finally, we are actively exploring ways to combat unfairly issued tickets from automatic number plate recognition technology. There is a widespread sense from motorists that this technology does not function as it should. I have heard of motorists entering and leaving a car park yet still having a ticket issued, and that is obviously a real concern. We want a private parking sector that works fairly in that regard.

    Turning to the substantive issue of timing, I am pleased to update the House that work with the BSI commenced in December, and it has now convened a group of key stakeholders to write the code. This group comprises representatives from the parking industry, consumer groups, standards bodies and, recognising the key role that parking plays in supporting our high streets, the retail sector.

    I can also update the House that we have appointed Steve Gooding, the director of the RAC Foundation, as our technical author, and he has now produced the first draft of the code. The RAC Foundation is a well-respected ​transport policy and research organisation and Mr Gooding is a former director-general of the Roads Traffic and Local Group at the Department for Transport, so he will bring real knowledge, experience and expertise to bear on his work. This is only a first draft and, as I have said, the final draft will be worked up in close consultation with key stakeholders, and there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard in this process.

    In the context of this debate, I would like to put it on record that the Government are doing all they can to utilise our parking infrastructure to best serve our collective response to the coronavirus. I am sure that the measures that we have announced to support frontline workers and volunteers have been welcomed by both the House and the British public. We are offering free parking for NHS workers, volunteers and social care workers in council-owned on-street spaces and car parks. In conjunction with NHS England, the parking sector and local government, we have produced a free parking pass to allow those workers to park in council spaces, worry free. We have pledged to cover the costs of providing free car parking to NHS staff working in hospitals during this unprecedented time. Our aim is to alleviate any unnecessary pressures on those workers by removing any fears that they may have about fees or fines while they carry out what is by common consent truly heroic work.

    As we take the first steps towards recovery, we want to offer alternatives to public transport, but we are of course wary of an increase in the numbers of people taking end-to-end car journeys. To ease parking capacity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that the Government will seek to repurpose underused parking facilities outside town centres, made possible by close collaboration with local authorities and private operators. Those who live too far from town centres to cycle or walk can therefore park on the outskirts and finish their journeys on foot, bike or even—excitingly—an e-scooter.

    Individual businesses are also playing a hugely positive role. Many private operators have been offering parking spaces to NHS workers during the coronavirus crisis. I commend such efforts and reiterate the Government’s appreciation for them.

    I recognise the need to progress the new code at pace, and across Government we recognise the urgency of this issue. It is crucial to get the regulations right and, as my right hon. Friend said, the coronavirus situation has had an impact, but we have committed to developing the final code this year. Prior to that, a public consultation will take place to give the parking industry, the public and other interested parties the opportunity to have their say.

    The 2019 Act builds on action that the Government have already taken to tackle rogue private parking firms, including the banning of wheel clamping and towing and the stopping of over-zealous parking enforcement by councils and parking wardens. Beyond our work on the private car parking sector, the Government are taking decisive action to improve public and private car parking throughout the country.

    The Government are taking determined steps to protect motorists across the country. The Act will tackle an issue that our figures show affects literally millions of motorists every year. We will ensure that the private parking industry works to the high standards that motorists ​can reasonably expect, and we will tackle the rogue operators and their unfair practices. It will be an industry that will deliver for everybody.

    I thank my right hon. Friend again for raising the issue of Mr Hindle, and I put on record my own tribute to Mr Hindle for his persistence in showing a certain British doggedness in refusing to accept a fundamentally ​unfair situation. I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to update the House on the work that we are doing to improve the sector. I of course look forward to returning to the Dispatch Box to give further updates when the final code is ready.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Private Car Parks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2020.

    It feels like groundhog day. This debate has been scheduled, I believe, perhaps as many as four times, but events repeatedly knocked it off course. Today, however, we are finally back in the Chamber physically with a full day of debate, and I have the chance to finally bring to the Floor of the House the long and tortuous case of a single parking ticket.

    My hon. Friend the Minister need not look panicked that I am expecting him to do something about a specific parking ticket—the matter is now resolved—but I wish to draw to his attention the fact that my constituent, Mr Guy Hindle, was bullied by a succession of organisations over a period of some 20-plus months over a six-minute transgression. As Mr Hindle happily agrees, this is not about his experience. He is a resilient individual—very much so—and he eventually negotiated a payment of just £15, when at one point £247.62 was being demanded from him. It is about shining a light on what he refers to as the sharp practices of the wild west of parking services. It is not just my constituent who refers to private parking as the wild west. He is in great company. I tracked down some commentary from my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; he referred to it—private parking, not the Department—as the wild west, too.

    This case is a litany of bad behaviour. My constituent parked for a mere six minutes outside Vets for Pets in Southampton and did not see any signage regarding the charge for parking, so he was surprised to receive a penalty charge notice. He informed the company, Premier Park, that he intended to defend himself, preferably in court proceedings, because he regarded the £60 charge for a six-minute stop as unreasonable. He heard nothing more until June the following year—2019—by which time the matter had been passed to Premier Park’s legal representatives. Remember the original offence, if one can call it that, happened in March 2018. Then followed a succession of increasingly threatening letters mentioning county court judgments, and each letter and every telephone call my constituent made to Premier Park or their legal representatives made it clear that there would be many more letters—and so it proved. All along, my constituent was responding, “Take me to court. I have amassed a dossier of evidence. I am prepared to defend myself. I believe I have a good case.”

    Finally, in January this year, my constituent received confirmation that Premier Park would commence court proceedings unless my constituent was happy to agree to mediation. This was the first time that mediation had been mentioned. The original offence was in March 2018, and here he was, in January 2020, and suddenly the offer of mediation was made.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this case to the House. She is not the only one who has had run-ins with private car park firms. Indeed, the one she talks about ranks high in my mind. I fought a number of cases against it, and I have to say that ultimately I won them all. Does she ​agree that in the times we are facing, the privately run car park sector should show the same flexibility as our council car parks by removing charges and forestalling following through on any contraventions until we are past this very difficult time? Now is not the time for anyone or any private car park to profiteer or take advantage. We have to help our constituents and those individuals who have been held to be in the wrong for these contraventions.

    Caroline Nokes

    I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have a most excellent staffer who for the last 10 years has described herself as my office expert on parking charges. She cringes somewhat when into the email inbox pops yet another case, but as I tell her, she has a 100% track record so far and we are very proud of her.

    On the points the hon. Gentleman made about private parking charges at the moment, I am conscious that in Test Valley borough, half of which I represent as the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, the borough council waived parking charges right at the beginning of the pandemic and has since extended the free parking period. There are some challenging questions ahead, because as we move forward post pandemic, we want to see our high streets recover and to assist that recovery. I think the Chancellor and the Department have come up with some amazing and really important packages, but I have no doubt that the income from parking that councils have forgone has been a huge cost to them. They will need to find ways to make up that loss, but my plea to them is to show a spirit of tolerance and support for the shopkeepers and to allow our high streets to recover gently from this difficult period. The immediate reimposition of parking charges as lockdown ends would be a retrograde step. I was delighted to see the Minister nodding during that intervention, in which a really important point was made.

    As my constituent said to me, had mediation been offered to him early in the proceedings, he would have taken it—it would have been the sensible thing to do. Instead, however, he kept responding to Premier Park, “No. I’ll see you in court.” The company kept responding, “We’ll take you to court,” or rather, “We’ll send you more letters threatening to take you to court. We’ll get increasingly aggressive. The charges will go up and up. We’ll employ a succession of different legal representatives until you don’t know which one you’re trying to deal with.” But two years on, the offer of mediation was made, my constituent accepted it and they settled on a sum of 15 quid, which I do not think is bad going.

    What worries my constituent and me is the repeated bullying tactics: the threats of legal action, which are then not followed up for many months—in this case 20 months—the alarming threat of county court judgments, which we know have a devastating impact on people’s credit rating, and the threatening assertion that there will be lots more letters like that one.

    I am conscious of the most excellent piece of legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), which came into force in March 2019 and paved the way for a single code of practice for private parking, giving drivers greater protection through a new appeals service. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local ​Government and occupying a similar portfolio to the Minister, championed the issue on behalf of the Government. This sort of code could have made my constituent’s life much less of a misery.

    More recently, back in November 2019 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government appointed the British Standards Institution to work with consumer groups and industry to write the first ever compulsory code of practice for private parking firms to

    “restore common sense to the way parking fines are handed out…crack down on dodgy operators”

    and

    “introduce a new independent appeals service”.

    I know that is correct, because I lifted it from the press release I found on gov.uk. The code was also to ensure that a mandatory 10-minute grace period, which already applies to local authority car parks, be extended to all private parking services.

    I take my hon. Friend the Minister back to the precise period my constituent parked for: six minutes, which is four minutes less than the minimum grace period suggested. I am prepared to concede that my constituent’s supposed six-minute transgression happened before the excellent private Member’s Bill and before the Secretary of State appointed the British Standards Institution to write the new compulsory code, so maybe it is not reasonable to expect a member of the British Parking Association to apply 2019 standards to a 2018 offence—notwithstanding the fact that it was Premier Park itself that dragged the whole matter out for 20 long months—except that the British Parking Association voluntary code of practice already referenced a 10-minute grace period.

    Returning to the crux of the matter, the previous Minister with this responsibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), in response to a written question indicated that the British Standards Institution was contracted in December 2019 to develop the new code. It was tasked with convening a group of key stakeholders to write it, and there was to be a full public consultation within six months. The final code would be developed this year.

    I do not wish to hassle the Minister and try to hurry the process along, and I absolutely acknowledge that covid has got in the way of many things, but this year is ticking by very quickly. My constituent and, indeed, those of other hon. and right hon. Members who have returned to this Chamber time and again to discuss private parking services need the code. I argue that the parking industry also needs it, and it is more than a year since the excellent private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

    Will the Minister this evening in this much delayed debate therefore please give us an update on progress and an absolute commitment that, exactly as was said in February, the code will be developed this year and introduced? Will he reassure me and my constituent that the 10-minute grace period or transaction period, which allows a driver to enter a car park, establish the charges and then decide whether he wishes to pay them or whether they are far too high for his taste and he wishes to leave and go elsewhere, will be included? That could have saved my constituent 20 months of harassment and pain.​

    That grace period should be a crucial part of enabling drivers to make informed choices in future. That is what this is all about: allowing drivers to make informed choices and giving them a bit of leeway so that they can decide whether that is actually where they wish to park. I learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that there might be many good reasons why parking charges are not advertised outside a car park, such as it being in a conservation area where there might be restrictions on signage. We should give drivers the opportunity to go into a car park, have a look and then potentially leave.

    I conclude by asking the Minister to make that assurance, to give us an update on when this code is coming and when the public consultation will happen or whether it has already happened and to give us a sense of progress and a sense that this matter is in hand and will be dealt with.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2020 Speech on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2020 Speech on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 2 June 2020.

    May I begin by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed, particularly the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for opening the debate? It is a pleasure to wind up. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for missing part of her speech because I had to go out for other Government business.

    This is a key Bill, which will update and equalise parliamentary boundaries, and ensure that every vote counts the same on the basis of 650 constituencies. I am pleased that there has been widespread support from across the House for key elements of the Bill, including from the Opposition, although that does not mean that they are not opposed to some elements of it. There was also support for improvements of the review process, such as changing the times of public hearing and consultation periods.

    I am particularly grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, who said that it was very hard for the House to be judge in its own interest, which is a fundamental point. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who thanked local election staff and agreed with our proposal for eight-yearly reviews.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) emphasised the equality of votes and thought that the 5% leeway was plenty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) reminded us all of the enormous personal affection that we have for our constituencies. It is always true of boundary changes that, however much we recognise that the general principle is right, when a village or street is suggested to be excised from our constituency, we always find it disagreeable. That is one of the key reasons that the Boundary Commission has to be so independent.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who told us that we should all be hedgehogs. I am not sure that I am that prickly, but his point that fairness is at the heart of this matter is a fundamental one. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) quoted the Chartists, and I thought I saw Opposition Members blush. Perhaps my spectacles need cleaning, but I thought that they must have blushed at that point because the Chartists, of course, were all in favour of equalising electorates.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) rather splendidly warned that she might be abolishing herself, which I hope turns out not to be the case, and ​made a spirited defence of the Bill on that basis, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), who I am glad to say gave his wholehearted support to the measures.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I am sorry to say, rather dangerously made points that I made when I was a Back Bencher and the legislation was going through the first time in 2010-11, but which are not necessarily Government policy nowadays. I am afraid that I have repented the errors of my ways, but sadly he has not yet repented his, although I hope that that will come.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) spoke about the importance of communities, and that is a general point. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about smaller units and, of course, there being a seat for Gibraltar, which he has said in the House once or twice before. The Boundary Commission has the power to look at smaller units. That is something people can raise as it goes through its processes and is an important safeguard.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) said that his seat has existed since 1542. I am very jealous, because mine has only existed since 2010, and I like seats with a long continuity and history. He made a very fair point about large rural seats, which I am aware of.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made the point so clearly that she summed up the debate in her opening sentence, when she said that her seat has 83,000 voters within it, and the seat of the Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has 61,000. There is an obvious unfairness in that, which is being put right.

    My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is slightly subject to speaking as if he were on “Just a Minute”, managed to make the key point about variations being too big, which is being addressed by the Bill.

    I am very grateful for all the points that have been made in support of the Bill, but I am sorry about the reasoned amendment put down by the Opposition. I ought to point out to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who said that he was going to support the Bill by voting for the reasoned amendment, that that is not how reasoned amendments work. Reasoned amendments are only orderly and selectable if they are fatal to the passage of the Bill, so anybody who votes for the amendment is voting against the whole Bill and cannot cover the nakedness of what they are doing by saying that they are supporting the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way, partly because I gave way so many times earlier on in the day, but also because time is short.

    The changes should give people confidence. I must confess that the hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) really did get it wrong on the matter of automaticity. In the 1832 Reform Bill, every single constituency that was being changed was listed in an annex to the Bill, if I remember rightly, and that was decided by Parliament—it decided what the size of each constituency would be. We have increasingly handed that over to make it more independent because of the fundamental point that ​nobody should be a judge in his own cause, and we should not be a judge in our own cause. We should allow it to be done by an independent body.

    The hon. Member Dulwich and West Norwood said that the Government make legislation. No, they do not—Parliament makes the legislation, which is then implemented. It is implemented in such a way that there is no ability for the Government to alter the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and they have a duty to present it to the Privy Council for its approval by the sovereign. Automaticity means what it says. It is automatic, without the Executive having the ability to stop it, the House of Commons having the ability to stop it or, even worse, the House of Lords having the ability to stop it undemocratically because they do not like the results and are worried about what might happen. Automaticity improves impartiality and the fairness and independence of this proposal. Although Parliament will not play a role in making the order, nor will Her Majesty’s Government.

    Another key point made in the debate was on the Union. We heard from a number of Members about the impact of the tolerance level and equalisation on parts of the Union. The Bill does not change the tolerance level, which was put in place by Parliament in 2011. We must bear in mind that it is plus or minus 5%, so it is effectively a total of 10%. It is about 7,000 voters, if we take the total swathe from the central point. That means that the independent boundary commissioners will give a fair review, and it is worth noting that the two specific protected seats which are very small are Scottish seats. I am very glad that one of them is Na h-Eileanan an Iar, because I think the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is a national treasure, and it would be a great pity if he did not maintain his seat. That is being done to benefit the Union.

    David Linden

    Will the Leader of the House give way?

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    It is too late, I am sorry to say.

    That is to the benefit of the Union, and it is fair that every vote across our United Kingdom should have the same weight. That is the fundamental point. That underpins everything that is being done. Eight years is the right amount of time. It means that communities can be reasonably stable. It means that communities can carry on. It means that MPs can build up that association with their communities, so I urge Members to support the Bill and reject the amendment.