Sudan: Protection of Civilians
We need much shorter questions, please.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
I call John Grady, who is trying to confuse the Chair by sitting exactly opposite where he normally sits. I found you eventually.
- Hansard source
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
For the final Back Bencher contribution, I call Mark Sewards.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
These questions will last around an hour. Members will have to police themselves over the length of the questions that they wish to deliver. I call the shadow Leader of the House.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Order. Colleagues can see that it will be impossible for me to get everybody in, particularly if you are 13 minutes late—Mr Grahame Morris, you will most definitely not be getting in. [Laughter.] I call Martin Vickers.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I call my parliamentary chess partner, Warinder Juss, who lost to Kazakhstan by six points.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
A tip for Members: look at your question, cross out half of it, and speak for half the length of time.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
We need super-short questions. I will try to get everybody in.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank Members for working with me and for speaking at lightning speed. I also thank the Leader of the House, who has got his exercise in for the week.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Order. Ms Munt, you say, “you are saying”, but I am not. I hope you are coming to a conclusion.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order, and his assurance that the Member concerned has been notified.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I can see the hon. Gentleman nodding. What Members say outside the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair, but he has most definitely put his point on the record. He has most likely read the recent report from the Speaker’s Conference, which once again talked about Members using moderate political language.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
I thank the hon. Lady for notice of her point of order, and her assurance that she has notified the Minister. While this is not a matter for the Chair, I am sure those on the Treasury Bench—I am seeking to make eye contact—have heard and noted her frustration.
- Hansard source
Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response
Emily Thornberry will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, and these should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
Order. All Back Benchers are now on a six-minute speaking limit. I call Justin Madders.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I call David Reed. Many congratulations on baby Reuben!
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
Order. It is up to Members if they wish to take an intervention. If they do, they have an extra minute on their speaking time.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
As a constituency MP, I have had some appalling experiences with FirstPort, at Oak Lodge in Hockley and at King Georges Court in Rayleigh. The latter is a four-storey McCarthy Stone development that it manages, where the lift was out of action for almost a year. Is not the fundamental problem with FirstPort that it is ultimately owned by several offshore venture capital companies that are very aggressive in seeking revenue from their tenants, but do not seem very willing to provide a decent quality of service in return?
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
As a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I want to bring the House’s attention to the work we did in the summer looking into property management companies. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), would have been here if she was not already committed to a Westminster Hall debate at the same time, so I send her apologies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate. Like many in this House, my constituents have been affected by property charges and the lack of transparency from certain companies. We have already heard about FirstPort, and I wish to expand on what has been said about it. In Penn Place in Rickmansworth in my constituency, FirstPort looks after about 140 apartments on an estate. Many of my constituents who live there have contacted me regarding the ever-increasing service charges that they face. Their monthly payments have more than doubled, on occasion. They receive no communication as to why an increase is needed, and that places extortionate pressure, both financial and emotional, on those living there. We all are aware of the cost of living in our communities at the moment, given the cost of council tax, energy prices, and licence fees for renting properties in certain London boroughs. Many of my constituents have been unable to sell or move, as people do not want to purchase properties that come with ever-increasing service charges, and we have already heard about that. This is not just an issue in my constituency. I have worked with many of my fellow Conservative MPs on this, and indeed, I know it to be a proper cross-party issue. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, who I know will continue to ensure that this issue is addressed, build on the legacy of my Government, and continue to push the matter forward, hopefully at speed. I look forward to him giving that commitment when he responds to this debate. Despite its expensive charges, FirstPort does not even provide an adequate property management service. One of my constituents made me aware that carpets were not being replaced and walls were not being repainted. There is also a high turnover of property managers, which is ineffective for maintaining the estate and symptomatic of a poorly run company. When we were in government, we brought in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which required transparency about leasehold service charges. It would have allowed leaseholders, such as those in Penn Place in my constituency, to scrutinise and challenge increases if they are unreasonable. The Act has received Royal Assent, but it is yet to be brought fully into force. I understand some of the reasons behind that, but I urge the Minister to get moving on this. I am sure he will give us that reassurance a bit later. In closing, what assurances will the Minister provide to my constituents and many across the country, who constantly face service charge increases but no increase in service, and how we can better protect those residents?
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I am sure that many Members have attended meetings with groups of residents who, in trying to resolve issues that are causing them so much anxiety, are at their wits’ end. We have an example in Fylde that is actually pre the management company. An estate has been developed, but it flooded during the construction and twice since, and now the estate company is desperate to get it into a management company, and to transfer all the flood risk liability to that company. Does my hon. Friend agree that kind of thing will just cause further problems down the line?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments. Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to. I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary? More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), sends his apologies, so I am standing in for him. It is unfortunate that we are going to miss an opportunity for Backbench Business time next Thursday, but could the Leader of the House reconsider the following Thursday? We will have Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and that is likely to finish early, so perhaps there could be an hour or two at the end of the day for additional Backbench Business. In Westminster Hall, there will be a debate next Tuesday on the impact of reductions in official development assistance on international development. On 11 November, there will be a debate on support for dyslexic pupils at school. On 13 November, there will be a debate on modern day slavery in Pakistan. On 18 November, there will be a debate to mark the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and on 20 November, debates on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD Day. Turning to my own question, I have raised on a number of occasions the impact on my local community of the possible closure of Lindsey oil refinery. There is growing concern among union representatives, the local community and possible investors in the refinery, that the Government do not favour a bid that takes in the entire site and continues refining products. Indeed, one potential investor is considering a judicial review of the process. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister in the next few days?
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate. I understand more than most the issues with property service charges, because I am a leaseholder where I live in Hoddesdon. A quarter of my constituents live in flats or maisonettes, and 25% of property transactions in Broxbourne last year involved leasehold properties, but shockingly, as we have heard, it is hard to find any leaseholder who has a good word to say about their landlord or their service charge. Landlords and solicitors do not provide enough information to new residents, and far too often prospective residents are not properly informed before they move in about how much service charges have increased in previous years. They are then hit with huge rises down the line. It is also unclear where the money is going. A resident in Waltham Cross told me: “The service charge has skyrocketed from around £800 to £6,000 for each leaseholder, yet living conditions remain extremely dire. Residents here face ongoing issues including trespassers, mould, broken security doors, mice infestations and squatters. Our building also has several defects, including weak floors, fire safety issues, and ongoing leakages. At one point my flat became uninhabitable after a severe leak that took months to resolve”. I hear these stories again and again from constituents who come to me as the contact of last resort after months and sometimes years of neglect to their property. In that case I met the management company involved, RMG, earlier this year, but nothing has changed. Whether it is RMG, FirstPort, Bamptons, EN8 Homes or Warwick Estates, leaseholders deserve better from their landlords and management companies, who focus purely on collecting ever higher charges for worse services. However, by far the worst treatment of leaseholders in my constituency has been at the hands of—I hope the Minister is listening to this point—Labour-run Enfield council. I was first contacted by residents on the Whitefields estate in May this year, and what I heard left me outraged. Completely out of the blue, Enfield council was demanding up to £50,000 from each leaseholder for “urgent” repairs. Roofs that had never had a leak were earmarked to be replaced, and windows would be fixed, even though they had been used for years without issue. Understandably, my residents immediately asked, “What about my service charge?” Well, as the Leasehold Advisory Service says, many landlords collect money out of the service charge for a sinking fund, to help cover the cost of exactly these kinds of major works. But not Enfield council. No, it expects my constituents to stump up all the cash, even after raising the service charge that year and, as far as the residents are concerned, having not spent a single penny on the estate in decades. The Whitefields estate tenants association, and in particular leaseholder Nicky McCabe, have worked incredibly hard to bring the community together in response to this issue. They simply demanded straightforward answers to straightforward questions, but they were met with confusing statements from Enfield council representatives, who found it far too easy to say, “That’s not my job.” I attended the meeting. There were a number of directors from Enfield council there, all of whom earn significant sums of money, and they could not answer basic questions from my constituents about how much they would have to pay, and what was going to change on the estate. The communication was shocking. My constituents’ fight is still ongoing, and they have my full support.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point in standing up for his constituents. This is an important point. All MPs across the House have probably attended such meetings, and these companies are unable to answer the most basic questions. They are paid considerable amounts of money, and they cannot answer simple questions from constituents about how much money they will have to pay, where the liability sits, and what work they are going to do.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I fully support the right to buy, which was a good policy—[Interruption.] I am just stating that it was a good policy and I supported that. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about communication, which must be there. As I have mentioned, Enfield council does not collect a sinking fund, which can go some way towards mitigating some of the issues, as she and I have raised, with leaseholders being asked to stump up for large bills. We need more transparency and better regulation, and we must ensure—here I agree with hon. Members across the Chamber—that councils adopt outside amenity spaces. We need real improvements in the way that leaseholders are treated. Abolishing ground rent is a good first step and the Government need to get on with delivering that. I also agree that commonhold must be more widespread, but is by no means a silver bullet or right for everyone. I urge the Government to get on with it, improve the lives of hundreds of my constituents, and urgently implement more of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We must get on with those improvements and help hundreds of our constituents.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate in the House. Earlier this year, I wrote to hundreds of residents across the Weald of Kent to get a better understanding of how property management companies operate across our home. What I discovered was very worrying and, as many Members here will recognise, it is an all too common story. To date, I have heard from nearly 100 people across 11 estates all complaining about their property management company FirstPort. The pattern is as depressing as it is predictable: steep and unexplained increases in service charges, slow and inadequate responses to maintenance issues, and a serious lack of accountability and transparency. Let me share a few examples. Constituents in Yalding and Headcorn have told me that they face a 70% and a 40% rise in their management fees respectively. Those are not minor uplifts, and nobody can tell them clearly what they are paying for. I understand that costs are rising not least for things like insurance, but at the very least, hikes like that should be clearly explained. Constituents in Marden and Kingsnorth have documented cases where no maintenance at all was carried out for months, despite repeated chasing—grass not cut, lights not fixed and rubbish not cleared—and yet the bills keep coming. Finally, constituents in Tenterden and Coxheath have told me that it is beginning to affect the value of their homes, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some have said that their properties are becoming unsellable because buyers will not take on the liability of these charges and this management. In one case, two sisters are trying to sell their late father’s flat. He bought it for £150,000 and they now cannot even sell it at £60,000. At auction, the price has fallen below £20,000. They told me that local estate agents refuse to list it because of the fees associated with managing the property. Much of this is part of a wider pattern. Many residents on these estates pay twice for what most people would regard as the same basic services. They pay full council tax to their local authority, as everyone does, but on a growing number of estates, the council has not taken over the roads, street lighting or green spaces and therefore does not maintain them.
- Hansard source
Property Service Charges
I am afraid so, and fairly regularly in fact. The legal action that the hon. Member mentions is important to reflect on because it can in some cases be deeply distressing and seem very aggressive for people just trying to get what they have already paid for, which in some cases does not even exist yet. Residents are required to pay a second set of charges on top of the council tax to a private management company, such as FirstPort. They pay council tax for street lighting and then they pay a private company for street lighting. They pay council tax for maintaining the verges, and then they pay again for someone to cut the grass—except of course in many cases the grass is not cut. In these situations, the homeowner has almost no practical leverage. The council says, “It is private land”; the management company says, “You are contractually obliged to pay us anyway”; and the person who lives there, who cannot simply switch provider and who must disclose the charges when they come to sell, is left with little ability to challenge poor value. People are paying more and getting less. There is a continuing lack of transparency, with residents routinely denied a proper breakdown of charges, not given meaningful answers and, in some cases, not even given the dignity of a reply. FirstPort is one of many property management companies that have been allowed, in some respects, to conduct themselves with impunity, largely because local residents have almost no consumer power or transparency. I have met representatives of FirstPort, and they assure me that the company is changing and improving. I very much hope that this is true. But, in case that does not happen, the last Government took important steps to address this through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The purpose of the Act is to give residents clear information about what they are being charged and why; to widen access to redress when something goes wrong, which is crucial; and to ensure that disputes with management companies can be resolved fairly. But residents will not see those benefits until all the secondary legislation is brought into force, guidance is published and management companies are given a clear expectation that they will need to comply. I caution the Government against assuming that the answer might be to layer on fresh regulation or to draft a new Bill. I encourage the Government to accelerate the implementation of those elements of the Act. My constituents do not want to wait, say, another year to see itemised, comprehensible service charge bills and prompt access to redress. They accept that the streetlights must be maintained, the gutters cleared and insurance bought—they know all of that costs money—but what they will not accept, and nor should they, is paying more for less with no answers and no accountability.
- Hansard source
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
There are many displaced people in other countries in the region as a consequence of the violence in Sudan. What additional support are the UK Government giving to those countries to support those displaced people?
- Hansard source
Small and Medium-sized Businesses
I recently met with Discover Adventure, a small business in Coombe Bissett which is genuinely struggling to engage with Government over the recent package travel regulations. It sits ambiguously between DBT, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; indeed, a question was thrown back today, having been tabled in the Table Office. May I sincerely ask the Minister to help me locate the correct Minister to deal with the Association of Independent Tour Operators? This is a vital small business sector in this country, and it needs someone to engage with in Government over these regulations.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
May we have a debate on the regressive taxation of single parents? If we look at the costs for 2025-26 of employing a single parent on the national living wage for 30 hours a week, we find that the combination of the national insurance threshold going down 45%, a 6.7% increase in the cost of the national living wage and additional costs related to national insurance means that it is 11% more expensive to employ somebody who is working 30 hours a week on the national living wage. Surely that is not what a Labour Government should be standing up for?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
I thank the Minister for his meticulous and thorough analysis of all the different strands of this challenging problem, and for the work he has done to deal with the complexity of different groups’ concerns over delivery of the compensation. I also thank Sir Brian Langstaff for what he has done. However, after six years, £140 million has been spent on this inquiry—and we do not yet have the accounts for the current year. In Sir Tyrone Urch’s review, which the Minister mentioned, the first recommendation is regarding policy stability. Can the Minister say something about how we will achieve that policy stability? Respectfully, is it not time to thank Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work and then focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations, which do not achieve much for the individuals who need this accelerated?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our very best wishes to the victims of the hurricane in Jamaica, and now also Cuba, Haiti and the Turks and Caicos Islands. I want to pay a personal tribute to Prunella Scales, who died this week. She was a magnificent actress, the linchpin of a great acting dynasty and—as was her husband Timothy West—a wonderful reader of audiobooks. Among the news this week have been the following items: the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), has been elected as deputy leader of the Labour party, and has vowed to work constructively with No. 10 Downing Street; the Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly contradicted the Prime Minister in relation to the collapsed China spying case; the Labour party has fallen in the polls to a record low for a recently elected Government; and Irish citizens may now be forced to have digital identity cards to work in this country under the Government’s new plans. I would like to raise with the Leader of the House two important issues, one directly relating to the recent business of the House. As a former Chief Whip, he will know that the first question at Prime Minister’s questions always follows a simple formula: the Prime Minister is asked to list their engagements; he or she typically presents public condolences or congratulations and comments on an issue—often an international issue—affecting the whole House; and then says, “This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,” and so on. Unfortunately, since taking office last year, the present Prime Minister has increasingly misused his first engagements question. Two weeks ago, he used it to avoid making a full statement to the House about China, which I do not think can have pleased the Speaker’s Office. This week, he used it to try to score a series of partisan political points—by my counting, the eighth time he has tried to do this since taking office. This is an abuse of procedure, and it is a discourtesy to this House. Its effect is to turn an open question into a party political broadcast. It undermines a valuable opportunity to bring the House together every week on a matter of public importance before the usual knockabout of PMQs begins. It is unworthy of the Prime Minister’s office and unworthy of the Prime Minister, who is a very decent human being. Therefore, may I politely invite the Leader of the House to ask the Prime Minister to desist? [Interruption.] And may I wish him good luck in doing so? My second issue concerns the so-called graduate premium. The Government hold an extremely powerful set of data known as the longitudinal educational outcomes —or LEO data—which link people’s school results, university records and later earnings. Many people in this House—including, perhaps more than any of us, the Leader of the House—will know that education can transform people’s lives for the better. This dataset can show what happens and how it does so in detail, but most of the data remain entirely hidden. Only limited figures have been published, such as average graduate earnings five years after university. The Government also have information on what happens to those who do not go to university, but this too is withheld, so we still cannot answer questions that are crucial for many people. How financially worthwhile is a particular course or a particular institution? How effective are apprenticeships? What difference does university really make? The secrecy weakens public trust and good public policy. Families and young people are being forced to make major life choices without clear facts, because no member of the public or, indeed, Member of this House can see which courses or institutions genuinely improve this kind of opportunity. It seems that the Government themselves will increasingly use the data to shape policy, but without making those data public. People go to university for many different reasons, and financial returns are only part of the story, but these data are gathered at public expense and describe public outcomes. With the right safeguards, they should be open for review and for public debate and discussion. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explained exactly how, so will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Department for Education to make the LEO data public soon?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
To show his deregulatory zeal, the Business Secretary just boasted about scrapping the British Hallmarking Council, which has one part-time employee. Given that every £1 of regulatory costs has the same impact on investment as £1 taken in tax, why are the Government proceeding with their unemployment Bill and proposing a £5 billion a year tax on British businesses?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Liberal Democrat-chaired Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority has cooked up a dangerous plan to remove nearly a third of the fire engines from the area, including Haddenham. They are also fully closing Stokenchurch and Great Missenden fire stations in my constituency. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of not just local fire services but joined-up thinking, given that this Government wish to massively increase the number of homes built in Buckinghamshire and plaster our countryside with dangerous things like battery energy storage systems, which pose a huge fire risk?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. The Conservatives brought in a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices in the network. Labour has promised to scrap that. What assurances can Ministers give to people in Middleton, Lockington, Leconfield, Cherry Burton, Aldbrough, Walkington, Tickton, Hedon, Wawne, Skirlaugh, Sproatley, Beverley, Roos, Ottringham, Keyingham, Withernsea, Easington and Thorngumbald that their post offices will be retained?
- Hansard source
Industrial Strategy
Labour’s industrial strategy recognises that housing and infrastructure are vital to driving regional investment. But as I hope the Minister will know, across the road, the Treasury has been quietly consulting on changes to the landfill tax, ending the decades-long exemption for quarries. That change would add millions of pounds on to infra- structure projects and increase tax costs for construction businesses across the country. How would such a move help grow our economy and build the homes and infra- structure that we need?