Newspaper Column - Short-Term Holiday Lets

Now we are in the Summer Recess I have spent the previous week out and about meeting with local people and businesses regarding my work for you as your MP.

Last Thursday I attended a round table meeting on the Short-Term Accommodation Association, industry stakeholders and Malcolm Bell from Visit Cornwall, to discuss the current imbalance of short-term holiday lets in Cornwall.

This is an issue, that along with the housing crisis, is often raised with me and it was good to be able to go to the Falmouth Hotel and join with other local Conservative MPs, Cornwall Councillors, including Council Leader, Cllr Linda Taylor, to take the opportunity to express our concerns about the current state of short-term holiday lets across Cornwall.

Since Covid, we have seen a sharp rise in properties 'flipping' from long term let to short term holiday lets across Cornwall and Cornish Conservative MPs have been pushing the issue in Parliament. The Government is committed to tackling and solving the issue, without damaging our thriving tourist sector.

Among the topics discussed were changes to local planning laws, as well as the registration of short-term holiday lets which will enable better regulation of their use, prioritising the needs of local communities first. 

This was a really great opportunity to hear views directly from the Short-Term Accommodation Association and Visit Cornwall and get stuck in on what we need to do to resolve the problems caused by short-term holiday lets for so many here in our community.

As a team, Cornish Conservative MPs and councillors have worked hard with the Government to tackle the crisis of short-term holiday lets. It is essential that we find a solution to the crisis but one which is not at the expense of the tourism industry. So many here in Cornwall rely on leisure and tourism for work every summer and they cannot be forgotten during this conversation.

However, many communities are reluctant to support housing developments because there is currently nothing to stop properties being bought by investors and used as short-term holiday lets, rather than family homes.  Using the planning process, we hope that local communities can finally make a choice in how they wish to resolve this, and we are bringing people together to identify how we can make this work for all of us to be a real Cornish success.

Earlier this year I welcomed proposals announced by the Department for Levelling-Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) for a requirement for planning permission to be granted for short-term lets in tourist hot-spots like Cornwall. Pushing those interested in letting their second homes to use this process allows an element of control by local councillors and residents. In Truro & Falmouth this means that each application can be judged on its merit and value to the community. The Government is currently consulting on these proposals.

Since being elected as the MP for my community in Truro & Falmouth I have been resolute in my commitment to change the way housing works in Cornwall so that Cornish families can get on the housing ladder with an affordable home. After many conversations with Ministers by all Cornish MP’s we are finally making some progress that allows local people to take control of the number of holiday lets within our towns. I look forward to seeing the results of the consultation and will push for the Government to introduce these measures as quickly as possible.

As always, I am fully focused on the job at hand and if there is ever anything at all I   can do to help, then please do not hesitate to contact me. Please get in touch with me by email at Cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk , or by telephone on 01872 229698. My regular constituency advice surgeries are held in a covid-safe environment at my office, so please do get in touch should you wish to meet me about any matters that I can be of assistance with.

Campaign Reply - Please stand up for high street pubs

Thank you for contacting me about concerns set out by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) over the Government's consultation on high street rental auctions. 

Like you, I recognise how valuable our pubs are to the many people who enjoy them. Not only are they important parts of local economies, but they also bring people together and are often the very lifeblood of our communities.

It is always disheartening to see a pub forced to close its doors permanently. I completely understand that closures can be hard for owners and communities. I also recognise the wider and persistent issue of vacant high street units which the proposed new high street rental auction process is aiming to address. Shops and buildings being left vacant for prolonged periods of times is a blight to our high streets, has a direct and negative impact on footfall and risks businesses shutting down. 

The Government has carried out a consultation on the design of high street rental auctions, including a new permitted development right to allow buildings outside the Commercial, Business and Service Use Class (such as pubs) to change use as part of the new high street rental auctions process. I look forward to reading the Government’s response to the consultation in due course.

I want to assure you that the Government has been clear that the permitted development right, if introduced, would not allow for physical works to be carried out to the premises that amount to development. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has said that: “Where such building works are necessary, a planning application or listed building consent would be required. The premises will revert to its former use at the end of the period of the lease, unless otherwise agreed and planning permission obtained…”.

It will be for individual local authorities – who know their area best – to use their discretion when it comes to using the new powers for high street rental auctions. The aim is not to interfere with properties whose landlords are actively seeking to fill their premises, but rather to provide a tool to local authorities where vacancy rates are a significant issue and landlord cooperation is low.

Existing mechanisms to support community groups to step in where pubs are at risk of being lost without intervention include listing a pub as an Asset of Community Value which allows communities up to six months to bid to buy it if it has been put for sale. In addition, the Government’s £150 million Community Ownership Fund is helping community groups buy such assets as pubs so that they can continue to serve their local area.

I do hope that this response has provided you with some assurance. Please be assured that I will be carefully scrutinising the outcome of the Government’s consultation.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Campaign Reply - Do you support changes to the State Pension age?

Thank you for contacting me about changes to the State Pension age.

The Government decided over 25 years ago that it would make the State Pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality. The relevant legislation for equalisation includes the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007 and 2011. 

In light of increases in life expectancy since the 2007 Act, the Coalition Government decided to accelerate equalisation to ensure that the UK pensions system remained sustainable. As such, the 2011 Act brought forward equalisation but capped the maximum increase at 18 months. This meant that the State Pension age for women would still reach 65 in November 2018 but the increase from 65 to 66 would happen by October 2020 rather than April 2020 – at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. 

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have supported the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the Supreme Court refused the claimants’ permission to appeal. Importantly, the case brought before the High Court was dismissed on all grounds, including notice, in October 2019. The Court also ruled that there had been no discrimination on grounds of age or sex. 

Moreover, the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007 and 2011 were all subject to public consultation and debate in Parliament and were all widely reported in the media. The changes in the 1995 legislation were communicated in leaflets, advertising campaigns and individual letters. The up-to-date State Pension age was also provided to those who requested a Pension Statement. More than 37 million personal State Pension statements were provided between April 2000 and September 2020.

I am aware that the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has concluded the first stage of its investigation into how the DWP communicated changes to the women's State Pension age and is currently reviewing the second stage following a legal challenge. However, the PHSO investigation is a multi-staged process, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment while the investigation is ongoing. Section 7(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 makes clear that Ombudsman investigations “shall be conducted in private”. 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Campaign Reply - The Illegal Migration Bill

Thank you for contacting me about the Illegal Migration Bill. 

The volume of illegal small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The asylum system currently costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year, and since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the UK by small boat. This is why stopping the boats was one of the five promises the Prime Minister made to the public in January. The new Illegal Immigration Bill will fulfil this promise and means that someone who enters this country illegally will be swiftly detained and removed back to their home country if it is safe. This will help the break the business model of people-smuggling networks, and ultimately save lives. 

I can assure you that as we reduce illegal migration, the Government will do more to help the most vulnerable through safe and legal routes as it has done for Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.  Since 2015, the UK has offered safety to nearly 480,000 people from all over the world. While supporting the most vulnerable, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will accept, once illegal migration is under control. In conjunction with local authorities, this will allow the Government to take into consideration local capacity for accommodation, public services and support. 

This Bill will ensure that we have a safe and fair immigration system, which will continue to help the most vulnerable. 

The new Bill will ensure that if someone enters the UK illegally: 

• The Home Secretary will be under a new duty to remove them.

• They will be detained, with no recourse to Immigration bail or judicial review within the first 28 days. The Government can maintain detention thereafter so long as it has a reasonable prospect of removal.

• The number of appeals and challenges available to suspend removal will be radically narrowed. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly, or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the safe country they are being removed to, will be able to delay their removal.

• Other human rights claims, including the right to private or family life, or other forms of Judicial Review cannot suspend their removal. They will be heard remotely, after removal.

• They will be disqualified from using Modern Slavery rules to prevent removal. If someone is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, the Government will ensure they are safely returned home from where they were removed against their will, or to another safe country. Removal from the UK may only be deferred where a person is co-operating with law enforcement agencies in an investigation into the circumstances of their trafficking. This will mean that genuine victims are protected, while preventing people from abusing the UK's modern slavery laws to thwart their removal from the UK.

• They will face a permanent bar on lawful re-entry to the UK and a permanent bar from securing settlement in the UK or from securing British citizenship through naturalisation or registration, subject only to very narrow exceptions.

The Home Secretary has said that the Rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to at the last minute block removal flights to Rwanda last year, was deeply flawed. As such, that is why the Government has already initiated discussions with Strasbourg, to ensure that Rule 39 orders meet a basic natural justice standard, and one which will prevent the abuse of Rule 39 to thwart removals. I understand that the Bill sets out the conditions for the UK's future compliance with such orders. 

The Home Secretary made a statement under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that this does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible within the Convention rights, only that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that they may not be. The Government has said that it is testing the limits, but the Home Secretary remains confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. Both Houses will have an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the Bill and once approved the measures in the Bill will have been expressly endorsed by Parliament, and the Government expects the courts to take this into account.

I am aware that New Clause 10 sought to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from “specified countries”. I am aware that provisions set out in the Bill make it clear that the asylum or human rights claims of those who have entered the UK illegally and who have not come directly from a place where their life or liberty were threatened will be declared inadmissible and therefore will not be substantively considered. For this reason, the Government did not support New Clause 10 during the Bill’s Remaining Stages.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Campaign Reply - Do you support the transition to faux fur for the King’s Guard’s Caps in Party Manifesto?

Thank you for contacting me about the phasing out of experiments on animals and the use of fur for bearskin caps. I appreciate your feelings on the matter and understand how important animal welfare is.

I would like to reassure you that the UK's rigorous regulatory system ensures that no animal testing or research takes place if a non-animal alternative exists that would achieve the scientific outcomes sought. The National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) is the UK’s leading scientific based organisation dedicated to replacing, refining, and reducing the use of animals in scientific research and testing. The NC3Rs supports the research community to use the latest science and technology to replace animal studies, providing new approaches for biomedical research, and avoiding the time and cost associated with animal models.

 

Without animal testing it is highly likely that a large number of potentially dangerous new medicines would be tested in healthy volunteers and patients in clinical trials. This would be completely unacceptable. That said, I welcome the Government's commitment to the development of non-animal technologies. Such technologies have the potential to reduce the reliance on the use of animals, improve the efficiency of drug research and development, and deliver safer, cheaper, and more effective medicines to patients. Ministers have also stressed that they continue to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce, and refine the use of animals in research. I understand how important this research is in reducing animal testing, and I will continue to follow this as it develops.

 

Regarding your concerns about the wearing of bearskin caps, I know that Guardsmen take great pride in wearing the bearskin cap, which is a celebrated image of Britain, and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is very sparing in the acquisitions that it makes. Individual soldiers do not possess their own hats, rather they are cared for and shared within the Household Division, and, despite their constant use, every effort is made to carefully prolong the longevity of each ceremonial cap. On account of this, they usually last for more than a decade, with some having been in use for as long as 60 years.

 

That said, I can assure you that the MOD would like to find an alternative material to bearskin should one prove acceptable. This is a commitment the MOD takes very seriously. The MOD have not to date seen evidence that a suitable faux fur product exists to be considered as an alternative. Until that material is sourced and proven, I can assure you that the UK goes to great lengths to ensure that the pelts that make the King's Guards caps are procured in the most responsible way possible.

Let me be clear, bears are never hunted to order for the MOD. Bear pelts used for the King’s Guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada precisely because it is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

 

I recognise how essential it is to ensure animal welfare standards are upheld and protected, I am pleased that since 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has had a strong track record in reforms. This includes: a ban on the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens; mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses across England; a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses; the strongest ivory ban in the world; mandatory microchipping of dogs; and new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens; and the modernisation of the licensing system for dog breeding and pet sales.

 

In Cornwall, we can see the work of the Environment Land Management Scheme (ELMS). ELMS works with farmers to protect and improve natural environments. ELMS aims to give subsidies to farmers for improving soil health, preventing water pollution, restoring habitats, reducing agricultural emissions, reducing inorganic fertiliser and pesticide use and improving animal welfare. This is incredibly important in ensuring farm animals and wildlife are protected in rural areas, whilst also making food production more resilient and efficient over the longer term while contributing towards the UK’s environmental goals on carbon, biodiversity, water quality and net zero.

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write. If you require any further assistance on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Campaign Reply - Do you support changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR)?

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations.

The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) are a key part of the global health security system designed to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease.

The original International Sanitary Regulations, which preceded the International Health Regulations, were adopted in 1969 and amended several times: in 1973, in 1981, and in 2005. The third edition (2005) has been amended twice – in 2014 and 2022. The revisions of the regulations illustrates their fluid nature, adapting to the health challenges that the world faces at that time. As medical knowledge changes, I believe it is only right that health regulations change too. 

Regarding the current amendments, the Government is eager to ensure that countries' obligations under the IHR remain fit for purpose and reflect the lessons learnt from the Covid-19 pandemic. Measures that the Government wish to see include a stronger global commitment to effective disease surveillance, early reporting of potential health threats, and transparency in sharing information. I understand that the Government continues to formulate positions during ongoing textual negotiations and has engaged other World Health Organisation member states on the matter, including through the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (2005).

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me about this important matter. If I may be of further help to you on this or any other matter please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Campaign Reply - The Illegal Migration Bill

Thank you for contacting me about the Illegal Migration Bill. 

The volume of illegal small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The asylum system currently costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year, and since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the UK by small boat. This is why stopping the boats was one of the five promises the Prime Minister made to the public in January. The new Illegal Immigration Bill will fulfil this promise and means that someone who enters this country illegally will be swiftly detained and removed back to their home country if it is safe. This will help the break the business model of people-smuggling networks, and ultimately save lives. 

I can assure you that as we reduce illegal migration, the Government will do more to help the most vulnerable through safe and legal routes as it has done for Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.  Since 2015, the UK has offered safety to nearly 480,000 people from all over the world. While supporting the most vulnerable, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will accept, once illegal migration is under control. In conjunction with local authorities, this will allow the Government to take into consideration local capacity for accommodation, public services and support. 

This Bill will ensure that we have a safe and fair immigration system, which will continue to help the most vulnerable. 

The new Bill will ensure that if someone enters the UK illegally: 

• The Home Secretary will be under a new duty to remove them.

• They will be detained, with no recourse to Immigration bail or judicial review within the first 28 days. The Government can maintain detention thereafter so long as it has a reasonable prospect of removal.

• The number of appeals and challenges available to suspend removal will be radically narrowed. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly, or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the safe country they are being removed to, will be able to delay their removal.

• Other human rights claims, including the right to private or family life, or other forms of Judicial Review cannot suspend their removal. They will be heard remotely, after removal.

• They will be disqualified from using Modern Slavery rules to prevent removal. If someone is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, the Government will ensure they are safely returned home from where they were removed against their will, or to another safe country. Removal from the UK may only be deferred where a person is co-operating with law enforcement agencies in an investigation into the circumstances of their trafficking. This will mean that genuine victims are protected, while preventing people from abusing the UK's modern slavery laws to thwart their removal from the UK.

• They will face a permanent bar on lawful re-entry to the UK and a permanent bar from securing settlement in the UK or from securing British citizenship through naturalisation or registration, subject only to very narrow exceptions.

The Home Secretary has said that the Rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to at the last-minute block removal flights to Rwanda last year, was deeply flawed. As such, that is why the Government has already initiated discussions with Strasbourg, to ensure that Rule 39 orders meet a basic natural justice standard, and one which will prevent the abuse of Rule 39 to thwart removals. I understand that the Bill sets out the conditions for the UK's future compliance with such orders. 

The Home Secretary made a statement under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that this does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible within the Convention rights, only that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that they may not be. The Government has said that it is testing the limits, but the Home Secretary remains confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. Both Houses will have an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the Bill and once approved the measures in the Bill will have been expressly endorsed by Parliament, and the Government expects the courts to take this into account.

I am aware that New Clause 10 sought to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from “specified countries”. I am aware that provisions set out in the Bill make it clear that the asylum or human rights claims of those who have entered the UK illegally and who have not come directly from a place where their life or liberty were threatened will be declared inadmissible and therefore will not be substantively considered. For this reason, the Government did not support New Clause 10 during the Bill’s Remaining Stages.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.