Kevin Hollinrake MP: speeches

154 published records · newest first.

Speeches

17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
May I welcome the Minister back to this place and to her new position? I assure her that I am very happy to work with her to further the best interests of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome what happened on Monday. Having 300 investors come to this country is very welcome; this country is clearly open for business. We are keen to help the Government to succeed, because it is in everybody’s interests. I speak not only as a constituency MP, but as a former businessperson. I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about cutting red tape and regulation. We would all welcome that, although I have some questions. We know that there is a bottleneck in our economy, particularly in planning and infrastructure, so we will welcome any changes that the Government can successfully make to accelerate the projects that have been held up by problems. We also welcome the work—for which I understand the Minister is responsible in her other role as Minister for pensions—on the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House reforms, which could liberate £75 billion of capital into our productive economy. That is much needed: only 3% or 4% is invested today in equities, compared with 50% a couple of decades ago, so it is very important that we continue the reforms started by the last Government. We were pleased to see all the positivity on Monday, despite the gloom and doom that we have heard from Government Members in recent weeks. It is good to hear investors saying that now is the right time to invest in the UK. We can see why. [ Laughter. ] No, it is not necessarily because there is a Labour Government. It is because inflation is running at below 2%, whereas it was running at 11% only two years ago. In this country we have only 4% unemployment, our economy is growing as fast as any other in the G7 and our deficit stands at 4.4%. That is what we handed over to the Minister’s Government. The deficit was higher than we would have liked, but in 2010, by comparison, it stood at more than 10%. We constantly hear from Labour Members the refrain that they inherited the worst economic situation in history, but that is simply not the case. I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or any other Government Member, on that point. If they can name a single metric that is worse today than in 2010, I will be happy to hear it.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
The Government!
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
The Minister is talking about confidence, but if confidence is rising, can she explain why the Institute of Directors has stated that confidence has gone from plus 30 in June to minus 7 today?
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
The Minister is a very sensible person with experience both in the private sector and in politics, so I am surprised that she mentions that figure. Of the £22 billion, £9 billion was a result of her Government’s actions in lifting public sector pay without any commensurate productivity improvements and in scrapping the Rwanda scheme. It is fake news to say that there is a £22 billion black hole, I am afraid, and the Minister absolutely knows it. There is no doubt that there are tough spending decisions and tough choices to be made, but it is very disappointing that one of the Government’s tough choices has been to scrap the winter fuel allowance. Let us see what their other choices will be.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
I am very keen not to do that. That is my point. It is gloom and doom from the Opposition —sorry, I mean the Government; I have to stop doing that—and it is brought on by these significant changes. These are not my comments, but the comments of sensible business representative organisations, which are representing their members. We should listen to the voices of business in this context. Even Richard Walker of Iceland Food, one of the Government’s supporters, says that the changes must happen slowly to avoid a “disastrous impact”. I realise that we have a lot to get used to these days. I have to get used to calling those on the Labour Benches “the Government”, and I also have to get used to being a backseat driver. It is even more frustrating being a backseat driver when the learner driver in the driving seat does not know the difference between the brake and the accelerator. Importantly, stability is one of the key levers that the Government have at their disposal. Winston Churchill once said that some people see “private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Some see it as a cow that they can milk. Few people see it for what it really is—the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”. It is hugely important that we get behind private enterprise in this country. It is hugely important that we get that stability in tax policy, workplace policy and the employment relationship. It is hugely important that we continue to level up this country. I note that levelling-up seems to have disappeared as a departmental aim, but that is still hugely important to all parts of this country, not least to the part of the country that I represent. It is also hugely important that we control energy costs. We know that that is a key concern to many businesses around the UK. Another key concern is that we cut the red tape for our larger companies. The area that I focused most on as a business Minister was SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy. The No. 1 area that they struggle with is access to finance. I would really like to see some different measures in that area.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
I would not necessarily say “following the election”, but, generally, we should be very positive about our economy. I set out earlier some of the economic conditions that would make it conducive to invest in the UK, and we should be proud of that situation. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the change of priorities of the British Business Bank, specifically in relation to the pathfinder initiative. That piece of work was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) when he was in the Treasury. Again, that will help to ease the flow of finance into our SMEs. As I look, with a mixture of sadness and joy, at the now redundant Conservative party manifesto, I can see that there were some really positive ideas in there about easing finance for SMEs. In particular, I am referring to things such as regional mutual banks, which is a policy that the Labour Government should adopt, and the open finance and smart data revolution for our economy, which could transform the opportunities of SME finance, making it much easier for SMEs to shop around. However, the key thing that I would reiterate to the Minister and her team is that they need to make sure that we have stability in terms of not just work, but business taxation, capital gains tax, and business relief. I say no to a jobs tax, but, yes to stability and business taxes. I say no to taking us back to the 1970s, by giving unions more power, no to doom and gloom, and yes to a positive and optimistic view of the UK’s future in the world.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
There is no doubt that we have been through a difficult time, given the effect of covid and the cost of living crisis on a services economy, but the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that back in 2010 the deficit was more than 10%, whereas today it is only 4%. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, that is a difference of about £160 billion, the equivalent of the health budget. The inheritance left for the present Government is much better than the one we received in 2010.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
That is simply not true—just read what the Bank of England said about that time. All the numbers went back to normal within a month of that fiscal event. The hon. Gentleman can choose his opinions, but he cannot choose his facts. Let us look at some facts. Of course we welcome the £63 billion that has been announced, but as the Minister and her Government stand on a platform of honesty and transparency, let us put some honesty and transparency around the numbers. The Amazon £8 billion was announced on 20 March this year. The Blackstone investment of £10 billion in a data centre was announced on 23 April this year. Of the £63 billion announced, £36 billion was announced prior to the investment summit or initiated via things like auctions by the previous Government. Only 20% of what was announced was not already in the pipeline before the investment summit. The reality is that much of it was already baked in. There is bound to be an overlap when a new Government come in, but let us have some transparency and honesty around the numbers.
17 Oct 2024 · International Investment Summit · Hansard source
More
The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee is going to give us one.
8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State is right to say that farmers are a very important part of the community. His leader, the Prime Minister, said to the NFU last year that solar farms should not be created by taking advantage of tenant farmers. This is a live issue in my constituency and many others where tenant farmers will be deprived of their livelihood by new solar farms. Will he stand by that commitment and say quite clearly to his Cabinet colleagues that tenant farmers must not lose their livelihood by the creation of a solar farm?
8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. He talks about the importance to communities of farmers, particularly intergenerational farmers. We understand that consideration is being given to withdrawing agricultural property relief in the Budget at the end of October. Will he confirm that that will not happen? If it did, it would be the end of intergenerational farming in this country.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
Perhaps understandably, this is not my policy area. I am holding this debate because it is a constituency issue. I am not particularly aware of the Irish rules that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is right to say that local planning authorities have a requirement to facilitate the peaceful enjoyment of people who live nomadic lifestyles. I support that totally. North Yorkshire should provide such facilities, and it does. That site is occupied despite the fact that there are available places on a designated Traveller site nearby. That is one of the concerns: there are other facilities available, but the person who made this application does not want to be on them. I believe they are misusing the planning policy. I have no objection to people’s right to live alternative lifestyles and to live in different ways in their own communities; what I object to is the misuse of the planning process. The issue was dealt with, to some extent, by my very fine colleague—sadly, my late colleague—James Brokenshire when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. In February 2019, he published some new recommendations for planning authorities, stating that the intentional unauthorised development of a site should be considered a material point within a planning application. That is absolutely critical. He was saying, therefore, that the local planning authority had grounds to refuse the application on the basis that there was an intentional unauthorised development. Despite the North Yorkshire planning authority’s awareness of that requirement, it still recommended approval on this site, which I find astounding. I find the whole situation astounding, and so do many of my constituents. It is important that we look at the facts. Members engaging in this debate and people watching it on Parliament TV may look at the application on the North Yorkshire portal—the planning reference is 22/00102/FUL. The things I am saying are based not on local rumours and concerns, but on the actual documented situation with the planning application. The site in question is on Cornborough Road, about half a mile out of the village of Sheriff Hutton. It is in open countryside, and is outside the development plan. The application is for eight units of accommodation—four permanent breezeblock-built units, and permanent static caravans—and 12 car spaces. It has been occupied for three years without planning consent by a family with six children. Obviously, we respect their right to go about their lives in a way they feel appropriate, and we have every hope that those children will be properly educated and receive proper public services. The planning officers, in their wisdom, decided to recommend the site for approval, with one significant condition: occupancy of the site was to be restricted to the family and their dependants—the adults on the site, the owners of the site and their children. Of course, those children will be adults one day, which means that the site could be occupied for many decades. The application also says that there could be a variation in the application for an extended family, for example, which could mean that the site is occupied for a very long time. Remarkably, the agent for the applicant objected to that condition, again on human rights grounds. It is clear that the site will be occupied in the very long term, and that there will be the ability to sell it on to someone else. I think it is absolutely wrong that people can effectively drive a coach and horses through the planning system. My law-abiding constituents would not go about it in that way. Unless we deal with this situation properly, it will breed a sense of unfairness—the idea that there is one law for one and another for others. Unless we deal with the problem by clarifying the planning guidance, to ensure that anybody who is guilty of a flagrant abuse of the planning system cannot ever get planning consent on a site in that way, we will see more and more such applications, not in just my constituency but in constituencies around the country. I know the Minister is freshly in the job. I welcome him to his place. He is a good man, and we have dealt with many things in the past, when our roles were reversed, so I know that he will look at this seriously. We have engaged on this particular matter already. Furthermore, my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is also experienced in these matters. I urge the Minister to tighten the rules to ensure that our constituents, law-abiding citizens of this country, feel that we are on their side. Law-abiding people go about the planning process properly, and should not feel that we favour people because of abstract laws, laws potentially imposed on us by the UN convention on the rights of the child or the European convention on human rights—now embedded in our own Human Rights Act—which mean that some people are treated more fairly than others during the process. It is important that we act and that we clarify the planning process, so that people who act in that way can never get planning consent. That is the only way we will stop such rogue applications being submitted.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
I absolutely agree that sites should be made available, but may I reiterate the point that I raised? For the family I mentioned, sites were available. In fact, the family occupied a site at Tara Park in Malton until they moved on to that particular site, so it is not the case that no sites are available. There are also nearby sites in Osbaldwick in York. It is not as if there are no alternatives to occupying the site unlawfully. It is important to understand that.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
I support potential revisions to enforcement powers to give perfect clarity about how enforcement can happen in these circumstances. However, I want to touch on the Minister’s last point about intentional unauthorised development. Currently, that is dealt with as part of planning law, through a ministerial statement, rather than being formally in the NPPF—nevertheless, that does apply. Is he happy to maintain that situation, or will he look at that again? It is very important that that does form part of planning policy. Otherwise, planning authorities would have even fewer levers at their disposal to make sure that this kind of development does not happen. The problem is not planning policy; it is people who subvert the policy through other devices.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
As always, the hon. Gentleman is very reasonable. That is exactly the position that my constituents and I take: this is about fairness and applying the law equally. The Human Rights Act contains a requirement to consider the rights not just of the individual but of other people in such situations, but it seems that some applicants’ rights are given greater consideration than those of others. That is my biggest concern. This issue has been dealt with to some extent through planning policy, but that has not been sufficient to deal with some of the problems. I have set out how someone who respects the law and the planning process might set about applying for planning permission. In some applications it has not been done that way. Some applicants purchase a site first, probably a roadside site, with or without access—they might create access. Sites in Sheriff Hutton and Rillington are in open countryside and not in a location where someone would normally get planning consent for such developments. The site is prepared with the access and hard standing, for example, which is not a major contravention of planning policy and not something the planning department might have too big a problem with at the time. There might be an agricultural building on the site, for example, and water and power put into the site. Preparation occurs. Then one evening—overnight or on a bank holiday weekend when the people who look after these matters might not be in their offices—the site is occupied unlawfully without planning consent. Caravans might move on to the site, along with other equipment, and maybe toilet blocks are built overnight, which happened at one of the sites, and the site is occupied with a view to being occupied permanently. It is not a temporary position; the people occupying the site intend to occupy it permanently. Then the planning authority has to go through an enforcement process following complaints from local people about the application. The planning authority’s wheels turn pretty slowly, which I think the people occupying the site are aware of, and enforcement measures take place. That might take months, during which time the community might experience some disturbance and real concerns are expressed. When enforcement measures are taken, the owner of the land will submit a planning application retrospectively. Despite the flagrant breach of the proper planning process, the application is then considered as if it were made using the proper process. That is where it fundamentally goes wrong: the fact that the retrospective application is considered on the same grounds as though it were a normal lawful process is what is wrong. The application is made, of course, on the basis of the rights of the people occupying the site. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights are all cited in relation to the rights of the occupants—generally the families on that site who need healthcare and education. No one would doubt the need of the children and the people in need of healthcare to access such facilities. That is the basis of why the application should be considered, despite the fact that it is retrospective.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
I thank the Front Benchers for their excellent contributions. The tone of the debate was generally very constructive. I think we are all on the same page in terms of local planning authorities having to fulfil their requirement to make sure that suitable provision is made for people who live different and nomadic lifestyles. I thank the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for their points. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) touched on the key point: we cannot have a planning system where it is easier to apologise than to ask permission. If that is the case, it creates chaos in the system. Everybody can play by those rules, and there will be chaos in terms of planning applications and wider society. It undermines faith in the system. That is the point I want to make. Whatever the protected characteristics of certain communities, it cannot be the case that in our society there is one law for one and another for another. That feeds the perception that we operate a two-tier society, and that cannot be right. It undermines the entire system. I hope that the Minister will look at two things. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly said, we should continue to look at bolstering enforcement powers. I also make it crystal clear that the recommendation for the planning application I mentioned was for approval despite the fact that the written ministerial statement from February 2019 said that intentional unauthorised development should be a material consideration in a planning application. Nevertheless, the planning officers recommended approval, which I think was totally wrong. I congratulate the planning committee who still rejected the application, but that might well go to appeal. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at the full context of this. I hope he will make it even clearer in planning policy that somebody who is guilty of intentional unauthorised development will never be given consent for their application when there is such a clear abuse of process, and that that will not be tolerated. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
The hon. Lady is making a very valid and interesting point, but she seems to think that it was central Government’s responsibility to provide Traveller sites—I think that is what she said.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites. It is a pleasure to hold this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. My constituents are reasonable people; they totally understand and appreciate people’s wanting to live alternative ways of life, including nomadic lifestyles. I have lived all my life in my constituency, and the Travelling community has been part of the constituency for that whole period of time. We respect the contribution the community makes to our society, as long as communities are law-abiding and let other people peacefully enjoy their property, settlements and communities. The real concern in my constituency is about a number of planning applications, and whether planning policies apply equally to local people and to other communities, including Travelling communities. The basic principle is that there is one law for all, rather than one law for one person and another for another person: the law applies equally to everyone in our communities and society. With some of the applications, there is a real feeling that that is not the case, and that contributes to a feeling that we are moving to a form of two-tier society, which would be a dangerous state of affairs. Where some applications are being made, our local communities do not understand why planning policy is not being overseen equally, and there is a deal of anger about that. That is the case with a number of applications, including one at Sheriff Hutton, one near Rillington and a number of potential others. The applications are being considered, and in some cases recommended for approval, on the basis not of planning law but of other laws, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, as well as the European convention on human rights, which obviously has other consequences in different parts of our system. Normal, law-abiding citizens go about a planning application in the appropriate way: they first find a site that suits their needs, before looking at planning policy and probably instructing an agent to act on their behalf, and they then submit an application before doing any work to that site. The application must conform to planning policy, or they will not get consent. They go through the various iterations of the planning process. It may take years to get planning consent for the property development, but hopefully at some point they get it. Most of my constituents respect the planning process and its outcomes.
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
I agree with the principle. My point is that that is how the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act are framed, but it is not how things operate in practice. My constituents cannot occupy a field and build a house on it if it is in open countryside and not within the development limits of a village. They operate on that basis. Why should somebody else from a different community be able to occupy that site and develop it in a way that my other constituents, who work on a lawful basis, cannot? Why should that be the case?
11 Sept 2024 · Planning Policy: Traveller Sites · Hansard source
More
Okay, I have misunderstood. Perhaps she will clarify that she accepts that it is the local planning authority’s responsibility to provide these sites.
9 Sept 2024 · Post Office Horizon: Redress · Hansard source
More
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his kind words. I assure him that we will continue to work collaboratively to put the interests of postmasters first. I also associate myself with the congratulations offered by the Secretary of State to Sir Alan Bates and Lady Suzanne Bates, and the recognition of their contribution and that of others. As the Opposition promised during the very first urgent question of this Parliament, Ministers know that they will receive our full support to deliver compensation swiftly and quash the convictions of those wronged by this terrible tragedy. In his statement, the Secretary of State has set out a new appeals process for those who have already settled their claim under the Horizon shortfall scheme. I welcome that step. I know that the Department is implementing the work of the Horizon compensation advisory board, which was instrumental during my time in office, and will no doubt be supporting the new Government. However, I have some questions about the Secretary of State’s statement. First, he confirmed that the appeals process will be open for claimants who have settled their claim under the HSS, but it is restricted to those who have new evidence to support their case. In the same breath, he recognised lessons learned from redress schemes to date, indicating that his Department is aware of the flaws in the scheme, which I also acknowledge. Crucially, will the appeals process also be available, as it should be, to all claimants, not just those with new information? Given the accepted flaws in the scheme, it would be wrong to leave individuals without the opportunity to appeal. If people choose the £75,000 top-up, will they be entitled to appeal? If so, there is a risk that for those wanting to go through the appeal process it will be a slower process because of the number of people seeking to appeal. Secondly, the Secretary of State says that the appeals process will be up and running as soon as possible. Can he set out a specific timeline? Finally, on appeals, can he tell the House whether these individuals will be entitled to legal representation, as is the case in the GLO process? Could I also ask the Secretary of State some questions about the broader compensation schemes? Some £289 million has been paid to over 2,800 claimants across four schemes. I was alarmed to find, however, that only six claims have been offered redress through the Horizon convictions redress scheme, and no full and final settlements have yet been made through that scheme. Can he explain those numbers? I was also concerned to hear the Secretary of State say last week that only 130 letters have been written to postmasters who have had convictions quashed—I think there are 700 such postmasters—and that this was a matter for the Ministry of Justice, rather than his office. I am sure he realises that finger-pointing within Government will not wash with the people who have been through these difficulties and this horrendous scandal, so I must therefore push him on what steps he has taken to mitigate the delays in sending out letters to those affected. Finally, delay in all the schemes is at least partially the result of an adversarial process of lawyers arguing with lawyers. As a remedy, we were working very hard for Sir Gary Hickinbottom, scheme reviewer in the overturned convictions scheme, to be appointed across all three schemes to expedite claims. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that vital appointment has now been made?
5 Sept 2024 · Electric Vehicles: Chinese Share of Market · Hansard source
More
It will do.
5 Sept 2024 · Employment Rights · Hansard source
More
The Minister talks about statements, so I will read him some. The Federation of Small Businesses says its members view these measures with “trepidation”. The Institute of Directors says that confidence is fizzling out, with the biggest one-month drop on record. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation says that these changes “risked fuelling long, complex litigation” for businesses defending themselves at employment tribunals. Will he—and the Secretary of State—at least consider exempting small and medium-sized enterprises from these ruinous, French-style regulations?
5 Sept 2024 · Employment Rights · Hansard source
More
I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their places. The Secretary of State seems to imply that businesses are comfortable with his changes to the workplace, but this morning I and my fellow shadow Ministers met business representative organisations that are far from comfortable with the changes he is making, such as day one employment rights, a four-day week, a right to switch off and a higher and broader national living wage, as well as changes to business taxes, including in relation to business property relief, and the fair work agency. Does he not realise—do his Ministers not realise—that until he brings forward the detail on these plans, businesses’ recruitment and investment plans are completely on hold? When will he bring forward those plans?
2 Sept 2024 · High Streets Regeneration · Hansard source
More
I am not sure that Mel would be all that flattered, actually! Banking facilities are important to our high street traders. Bedale, among other towns, has no banks, and does not even have a working ATM. Given that banks have saved about £3 billion a year by closing branches, what is the Minister doing with his counterpart in the Treasury to ensure that we have proper banking facilities in towns such as Bedale?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →