Emma Lewell
MP for South Shields · Labour · United Kingdom
“South Shields tourism is largely made up of families from neighbouring regions who have saved hard all year round to spend a few days at the seaside, and even if the increase from this measure is marginal, they will not come.”
“I echo Mr Speaker’s comments at the start of business questions and hope that everyone has a lovely summer. Reform-led South Tyneside council is planning to close down our publicly run, high-quality STANLEY’s—South Tyneside Accredited Network for Learning in the Early Years—nurseries and daycare, which will affect hundreds of children, th…”
“T10. Heugh Street bridge has been closed since November. The council only applied to the structures fund after I raised the matter here, and despite pleas, it has still not implemented proper diversions. The bridge is absolutely vital on Great North Run day in September. Can the Minister suggest what else we can do next?”
“The chairman of the public inquiry also found that MI5 missed a significant opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack. Lisa, Mark and Caroline were signatories to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year.”
“Before I speak to the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which ensure that there is no carve-out from the duty of candour for the intelligence and security services, I put on record my utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and all my hon. and right hon.”
“This is so important for everyone who is fighting for justice—the nuclear veterans, Chinook, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the covid-19 bereaved families, and many others.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Emma Lewell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“If it were not for the over 2,500 food banks in the country, those adults and children would be without food. That should be a source of great shame for Government Members. Regional disparities, which the Bill supposedly aims to level out, are more stark when we look at the fact that life expectancy in my part of the world, the north-east, is two and a half years less than in the south-east. Increasing healthy life expectancy is a huge challenge. The pandemic revealed the serious underlying health inequalities in this country. Public health funding will play a crucial role in helping to achieve the mission; however, in the most recent allocation councils faced a real-terms cut. That is just another example of where the Government’s actions do not meet their levelling-up rhetoric.”
“The Government’s own reporting in the family resources survey, which was made possible only after years of campaigning to implement my Food Insecurity Bill, shows that households in the north-east are more likely to struggle to afford food than those anywhere else in the country. It would be totally misguided to think that we can level up the country without addressing that issue. We know that the figures will increase. Already this year food insecurity has risen by almost 10%. Thanks to the Government’s economic mismanagement, the biggest fall in household incomes on record will only exacerbate those levels of hunger. The Food Foundation has found that levels of food insecure households are rising, with figures for September this year showing a prevalence in nearly 10 million adults, with 4 million children also suffering from hunger.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. He will know that those measurements have not resulted in reduced levels of poverty. The amendments would strengthen the Government’s commitment to reducing it. There are 14.5 million people living in poverty across our country. Poverty among children and pensioners rose in the six years prior to covid, alongside a resurgence of Victorian diseases associated with malnutrition, such as scurvy and rickets. Surely the Government must have grasped that for at least five of their own missions to succeed people need access to food. Living standards, education, skills, health and wellbeing are all deeply impacted in a household impacted by hunger.”
“Can the Minister explain what discussions have been held with the Children’s Commissioner regarding this Government’s staggering levels of child neglect? Can he also say why the commissioner has not been encouraged to use her statutory powers to visit Manston and the hotels concerned to speak directly with the children there?”
“For months now, various Ministers, Secretaries of State and one of our recent Prime Ministers have all promised action regarding my constituent, Mr Singh. Mr Singh is subject to identity theft. He and his family have been held by Border Force, his immigration status is in jeopardy, his family have been placed in danger and his health records are in utter chaos. Now, a long-awaited ministerial meeting for next week has just been cancelled. Will the Leader of the House please use her good offices to ask her colleagues in Government to start doing their jobs?”
“In 2020, the former leader of my council resigned suddenly in the wake of allegations of bullying and financial concerns, just weeks after our chief executive walked out after 10 years in post. Police and other investigations are ongoing.”
“Councillors should not be free to police themselves, and monitoring officers should not be put in such potentially impossible situations. In 2019, a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life highlighted the fact that the vast majority of councillors and officers maintain high standards of conduct. However, there is clear evidence of misconduct by some councillors. The majority of these cases relate to bullying or harassment, or other disruptive behaviour. We have also heard evidence of persistent or repeated misconduct by a minority of councillors. This misconduct occurs at both principal authority level and at parish or town council level. I know all too well from my own local authority the consequences of limited checks and balances, and of processes open to interference.”
“As the current system stands, the monitoring officers, who work side by side with councillors every day of the week, are the very ones tasked with handling complaints about those same councillors. Should they feel that a complaint warrants further investigation, they can ask that the local authority’s standards committee looks further at the matter and decides on suitable sanctions. The committee can be comprised of other councillors, largely from the authority’s majority ruling group. They then decide what happens to their close colleagues and friends. They can decide whether the hearing is in public or not. If they decide to put any sanctions in place, they may be limited to, at most, simply barring them from meetings for a few weeks or taking away their ICT resources. It is abundantly clear that that system is totally unacceptable.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. As this is probably one of the last times I will speak in this Committee, I want to thank you, your fellow Chairs, the Clerks of the Committee and all House staff. I am presenting new clause 76, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. It would increase accountability and transparency and restore public faith in local government. Since the Standards Board for England was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011, local authorities have been tasked with making up their own rules and standards of conduct for local councillors.”
“(2) After section 9DA (functions of an executive: further provision) insert— ‘(9DB) Responsibility to answer questions A councillor who is a member of an executive must take all reasonable steps to give a timely answer any question about the executive, its functions or the local authority (including about standards of conduct) from any councillor of the local authority that is asked— (a) in writing, or (b) orally in a council meeting.’”— (Mrs Lewell-Buck.) This new clause would establish a legal requirement for executive councillors to answer written questions from fellow councillors and oral questions in council meetings. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“I thank the Minister for that response. We could rehash all the arguments that were heard last time, but I will not detain the Committee for long. The Minister claims that there were politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The other argument is that there were some genuine complaints. Sanctions were put on councillors and it stopped them from acting in such a manner in the future. Of course the electorate can decide, but sometimes they cannot decide for four years, which is a long time if somebody is abusing public money and their position. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 78 Responsibility of executive councillors to answer questions “(1) Chapter 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (executive arrangements) is amended as follows.”
“In local councils, though, it is up to local councillors whether they answer questions from other members. I am aware that the executive members of many councils already do, but I have also witnessed the opposite approach, where every single question is dismissed, shut down or deferred for a written response. Surely those in senior elected positions, such as council leaders, or cabinet members who hold responsibility for a service and budgets, should answer questions from other members. To refuse to do so is to be unaccountable. New clause 79 seeks to positively enhance the public’s faith in their local government representatives. Once again, I look forward to the Minister’s views.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. I will be brief; I sense that the mood of the Committee is that everyone would like us to finish as soon as possible. This new clause is in much the same spirit as new clause 76 and new clause 79, which we will consider later. Local government can be a mystery to many people. Anyone logging on to their council’s website or attending a meeting would testify to how confusing procedures can be. In this place, those who hold the position of Secretary of State or Minister are rightly asked questions in the Chamber, in the public domain. We may not always like the answers—in fact, I very rarely do—but the process allows a level of public accountability.”
“(2) In section 5 (designation and reports of monitoring officer), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1ZA) No elected councillor of a relevant authority in England may have any role in— (a) the recruitment or selection of the officer designated monitoring officer under subsection (1), or (b) the performing by the monitoring officer of the functions imposed by this section and, where relevant, section 5A.’” — (Mrs Lewell-Buck.) This new clause would prohibit the involvement of elected councillors in the recruitment or duties of officers appointed to monitor lawbreaking, maladministration, failure and injustice within a local authority or its executive. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“I thank the Minister, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 79 No role for councillors in recruitment or duties of monitoring officers “(1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.”
“It is clear why there should be no elected member involvement whatsoever in the appointment of any local authority monitoring officer. These officers work hard and are incredibly professional. They are already working in politically restricted, tightly governed senior roles. They should never be exposed to unacceptable scenarios, such as the one I just outlined. That is why new clause 79 is important. I hope the Minister agrees.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I appreciate that the majority of local authority appointments of chief officers such as chief executives or monitoring officers are made after a robust interview that has followed human resources processes. Those processes can involve senior elected members. However, I have witnessed, and am aware of local authorities that experience, inappropriate or partial influence being exerted when officers are conducting operational business. I recall once sitting with a chief executive and a leader, and the leader was demanding that something be done that the officer was deeply uncomfortable with. The leader shouted at the chief executive, “I hired you; I will fire you if you don’t do this.” I could go on, but I think the point is made.”
“(5) In this section— An ‘area’ may be— (a) a polling district; (b) a ward; or (c) the whole local authority area; ‘holiday let’ means— (a) a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday, or (b) any part of a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant to occupy that part of the house for a holiday; ‘relevant local authority’ means— (a) a district council in England; (b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council; (c) a London borough council; (d) the Common Council of the City of London.”— (Rachael Maskell.) This new clause provides for the introduction of a licensing scheme for holiday lets. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(4) A licensing scheme must allow the local authority to— (a) set out details of any area where the granting or renewal of licences will be banned, suspended or limited; (b) set limits and or thresholds on the level of the licencing permitted in any area; (c) require property owners to renew their licences every three years, or when a property changes in ownership; (d) issue fines or remove a licence of a property if— (i) fire, health and safety conditions are breached, (ii) criminal activity occurs at the property, or (iii) excess noise and nuisance or anti-social behaviour rules as set out in the licensing conditions are repeatedly breached, or (iv) the registered owner or the person listed as holding responsibility for the property has had licences on other properties removed; and (e) issue penalties or licensing bans on those renting properties without a licence.”
“(3) A local authority introducing a licensing scheme must— (a) outline— (i) the terms and conditions of the licence, (ii) the application process for securing the licence, and (iii) the licence renewal process; (b) determine an annual licence fee for each licensed property; (c) inspect any property prior to issuing a licence; (d) require the owner of a short term holiday let to — (i) apply for and hold a licence to operate for each property they let prior to trading, (ii) pay a licence application fee and annual charge for the licence, (iii) renew the licence as required by the local authority under their licensing scheme, (iv) pay any fines associated with breaches of a licence as laid out in the local licensing scheme, (v) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations, and (vi) provide up to date property details including details of who will hold responsibility for the day to day management of the property; (e) maintain an up to date list of all licensed short term holiday let properties within the local authority area to include— (i) the address of the property, (ii) whether this is a shared property occupied by the owner or a separate let, (iii) how many people are eligible to stay at the property, and (iv) how many days of the year that the property will be advertised for letting and be let; (f) inspect the property following a report from the public of an issue of concern relating to the property or to any other property owned by the same person; (g) monitor compliance with the licensing scheme; (h) publish an annual report on the number and location of licences including the number and location of licences in each ward and their impact on local residential housing supply and details of any breaches reported and fines issued; and (i) provide residents adjacent to the short term holiday let contact details of their enforcement officer should they experience any issue at the property.”
“(2) Any local licensing scheme introduced pursuant to regulations made under subsection (1)(a) must require any owner of a holiday let to— (a) obtain any fire, gas and electricity safety certificates as specified by the scheme; (b) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations; (c) secure a licence for the holiday let from the local authority prior to trading; (d) obtain a licence and renew this licence— (i) every three years, (ii) when the property changes ownership, or (iii) when there is a change in the person holding day to day responsibility for the property; and (e) not let out a property without a valid licence.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. My new clause would have given an extra layer of protection. She has misunderstood how impossible an environment can make it to speak truth to power. The clause would have helped people who are stuck in that situation, but I am happy to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 80 Licensing scheme: holiday lets “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require each relevant local authority in England to introduce a local licensing scheme for holiday lets.”
“7. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in ensuring access to justice for the victims of crime.”
“I thank the Attorney General for that response, but this Government’s inability to prioritise victims is well documented. Today, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse will be published. For these victims, their abuse is not historical; they live with it every single day, and they need justice. Will he commit to implement all the recommendations in full?”
“The Minister is asking us to have faith that the Government do not want to criminalise rough sleeping, but is asking us to approve a clause that will allow them to do just that. We are not debating what the Government are doing on rough sleeping; we are debating this legislation.”
“I do not have all the answers, and I know it can be difficult to create the right environment for manufacturing to thrive, but there are plenty of people smarter than me out there who have thought it through and do have the answers. What we need is a Government who are willing to listen to them, and to be held accountable for any action they take. New clause 8 would do that. I suspect that the Minister will try to explain why the Government do not support the new clause. I suspect that she will explain that there is already provision for measuring and monitoring the missions in the Bill. However, new clause 8 goes further than that: it cuts across nearly every one of the levelling up missions but, more than that, it targets them directly at the very areas that the Bill claims it wants to level up.”
“In the last 12 years we have seen a marked increase in low rates of economic growth, leading to stagnation in productivity and living standards. That is felt most starkly in the north-east, where Hartlepool, Redcar, Cleveland, Darlington, Newcastle, South Tyneside and Sunderland have all seen significantly decreased manufacturing outputs compared with 2010. The consequence has been an over 50% decrease in apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing technologies in every single north-east local authority since 2010. Manufacturing makes up only approximately 9% of UK output, compared with 17% in the early ’90s. In other countries, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and South Korea, it is nearly as high as 25%. The UK brand is still powerful; we have the skills and talents to be making and doing so much more.”
“In fact, in their own technical annex to the White Paper, when addressing how they will measure boosts in productivity, pay, jobs and living standards—especially in areas where they are lagging—the Government state that further work needs to be undertaken to refine the metric. I humbly suggest that new clause 8 does just that. Legislating for a reporting mechanism that is linked to a revival in manufacturing will focus the efforts of this and any future Government into job and skills creation, as well as the promotion of the UK as a manufacturing powerhouse once again. For too long our economy has been reliant on the service sector, where jobs can often be low paid and insecure, especially in coastal communities such as mine—coastal communities, towns and cities that were once the manufacturing hubs of the UK.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is tabled in my name and that of hon. Friends and hon. Members right across the House. Time and again, we have heard from the many Ministers who have sat opposite us during our short time considering the Bill that the Government are committed and serious about levelling up, yet time and again, when the Opposition have suggested amendments to support and strengthen those aims, the Government have voted against them. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to new clause 8, as it will actually help the Government. The Government have struggled to define what levelling up means and, consequently, how its success can be measured.”
“I referred to the fact that the Government’s technical annex to the White Paper identifies an issue with measuring and understanding pay, jobs, living standards and productivity. If the Government do not want to put an extra burden on businesses, who will they ask to get this data for them? How will they do that?”
“(4) Nothing in subsection (1) requires a relevant authority to do anything (or refrain from doing anything) if doing it (or refraining from doing it) would be in any other way disproportionate to the impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production. (5) This section does not apply to policy so far as relating to— (a) the armed forces, defence or national security, or (b) taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government; (c) Wales; (d) Scotland; or (e) Northern Ireland.”— (Greg Smith.) This new clause requires Ministers of the Crown and planning authorities (with a broad definition) to take account of the impact their policies are likely to have on the resilience of the agricultural sector, agricultural land and domestic food production. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“(3) In order to comply with the duty under this section, the relevant authority must have regard to— (a) any impacts the proposal may have on agricultural production in the UK; (b) any impacts the proposal may have on the area of land available for agricultural production in the UK, including in particular the area of grade 1 and 2 land available for production; (c) any impacts on the genetic diversity of domestic livestock populations; (d) the impact on farming in areas of natural constraints including land above the moorland line; (e) the ability of agricultural producers in the UK to operate competitive businesses; (f) any impacts on food security; and (g) any other factor which appears relevant to the relevant authority.”
“I am not entirely convinced, so I will go away and think about it, but I will not divide the Committee on the new clause today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 12 Duty to have regard to impacts on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production “(1) A relevant authority must, when making policy, have regard to any potential impacts of that policy on the resilience of UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production, and seeking to minimise any adverse such impacts so far as is reasonably practicable. (2) In this section, a ‘relevant authority’ means— (a) a Minister of the Crown; (b) a relevant planning authority (under the meaning in section 81).”
“The Minister admitted that PDRs are not being used in the correct way. He feels that our new clauses seek a review of every element of PDR, but if he and the Government do not want to review every element, what elements would they review? He has already admitted that the system is not working properly, so will he offer an alternative?”
“I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way again. I do not think that he quite understood the point that I was making. He said that PDRs are not being used in the right way, so where do he and the Government feel that they need to be looked at? I am not getting any clarity.”
“I have repeatedly raised the anguish that my constituents, the parents of Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry, are going through. Chloe and Liam were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law in relation to terror attacks prevents my constituents registering their precious children’s death. I first raised the issue in March—it was urgent then. Despite multiple promises from the Government Benches that legislative change was being considered, nothing at all has been forthcoming to me or my constituents. Why?”
“A recent report and freedom of information requests have found that levelling up is failing the north-east. Our councils are forced to spend millions on preparing bids, there remains a lack of transparency in the Department’s decision-making processes, and it is still completely unclear what levelling up means. It has always been an empty slogan, hasn’t it?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the National Planning Policy Framework to include a clause of a right of refusal of development on green belt land, thus giving local people the right to say what is to happen in their community . And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P002766]”
“Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of South Shields , Declares that the development of 156 residential properties on GA2 land is inappropriate and unwanted by the community; further that the development lies west of Sunniside Farm in South Shields, a site within the green belt which has had a food producing arable field for over thirty five consecutive years; further that, if allowed, the development would disrupt the heavily used 7th century Bede’s Way footpath which links the two ancient monasteries of St Paul’s and St Peter’s which are dedicated to The Venerable Bede; and further that all communities should have a clause or exception of a right of refusal of development on green belt land which is used to produce arable food or where local communities do not want development that would destroy the openness and permanence of the land .”
“I rise to present this petition organised by Jane Mills on behalf of 878 South Shields residents who oppose the development of 156 residential properties on land west of Sunniside farm, a site within the green belt with a food-producing arable field and a heavily used historical footpath linking two ancient monasteries. The petition states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the National Planning Policy Framework to include a clause of a right of refusal of development on green belt land, thus giving local people the right to say what is to happen in their community.”
“(3B) A completion notice may include requirements concerning the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of the completion period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.” This amendment would enable the issuance of completion notices withdrawing planning permission with a deadline of less than 12 months when certain conditions are met, and enable completion notices to require that building works be removed from a site or a site be reinstated to its previous condition . Thank you, Sir Ian—Mr Paisley.”
“I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 100, page 118, line 31, at end insert— “(3A) But notwithstanding subsection (3) the completion notice deadline may be less than 12 months after the completion notice was served if the local planning authority are of the opinion that— (a) development has not taken place on the site for prolonged period, (b) there is no reasonable prospect of development being completed within a reasonable period, and (c) it is in the public interest to issue an urgent completion notice.”
“It is not acceptable for Ministers simply to state that it is for local authorities and developers to work closely together to solve the issues, when there is no legislation to support them to do so. In fact, the legislation that there is does the exact opposite. My amendment would ensure that the relevant measures were in place to support local authorities and local communities. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment, but I would like the Minister to address my points.”
“However, South Tyneside Council has stated: “It is a privately owned site and a Planning Consent has been implemented, so the options open to the Council are extremely limited”. It added that it “cannot use these formal planning enforcement powers in this instance as the construction work has planning permission and the site is still considered in law to be a live construction site.” In short, my constituents must put up with this and are at the mercy of a faceless private developer. That building is just one example. I am sure the Minister will agree that it simply cannot be right that there are no powers that can be used by local authorities or the Government in such situations.”
“Earlier this year, the then Minister for Housing advised that “The Government are absolutely clear that new developments should be built out as soon as possible, once planning permission is granted. Where sites are stalled or there are delays to delivery, it is for local authorities and developers to work closely together on these issues.” He added that local authorities have the power to deal with the problem of uncompleted development under sections 94 to 96 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which gives local planning authorities the power to serve a completion notice on the owner or occupier of land, if the local planning authority considers that a development will not be complete within a reasonable time.”
“Okay, let’s go with that. Welcome back, everyone. I hope everyone had a lovely summer and all that. South Shields is a beautiful place, but at the corner of Lawe Road and Ocean Road, leading to our gorgeous coastline, there is a derelict building that has been left to rot, to the extent that only the frontage remains; behind it, there is nothing. The only thing holding it up is unsightly scaffolding. It has become a rubbish dump and a home for rats, and it is causing a hazard to neighbouring properties and the public. The building has been like that for five years. The property was once a guest house. In February 2017, planning permission to convert it into a 43-bedroom hotel was approved. Soon after, the developer decided to stop all work on the site.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way again. What does he envisage would happen if somebody kept renewing their planning application? How is the Minister proposing to stop situations such as the one that I outlined in proposing this amendment?”
“I do not seek to divide the Committee at this stage on this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“I have repeatedly raised the issue of sewage dumping on the beach in my constituency in this Chamber. The Government continually use the excuse that it would cost up to £660 billion to upgrade our sewers, but the actual cost, over 10 years, would be £21.7 billion. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid out in dividends, so why are the Government not making the water companies meet these costs?”
“I heard the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), but the reality is that the changes to licensing criteria have reduced transparency and accountability. Can the Minister explain the rationale for changing Government guidance on granting licences from refusing a licence if there is a clear risk that items may be used in violation of international humanitarian law to if the Government determine there is a clear risk?”