Humanist Marriages

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What a pleasure to speak in a debate chaired by my constituency neighbour, Dr Huq, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on bringing this important debate forward. I was intending to speak in it, before I was elevated—if that is the right word—to the spokesperson position. He has championed this issue, and others. Only this week, I was lobbied by the National Secular Society on his Education (Assemblies) Bill. He is the apostle of the secular, but never of the mundane.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who have all spoken eloquently, with examples of how humanist marriage works and their own testimony as humanists. They have also, which has been a common theme in the debate, emphasised the logic of where the issue is going and the unfairness of the current situation.

There is really only one point for the Minister to address, which is to explain the puzzle of why the Government are dragging their feet. I hope we will hear a clear exposition on that. In the words of the letter from 53 MPs—including myself—that we have heard referred to, humanist couples in England and Wales simply ask to have the same freedom of choice to marry in line with their beliefs as their religious counterparts. I hope the Minister does not disagree with that.

I have another quote, this time from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), about putting right

“a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1074.]

The door is open, more than ajar, and the Government have only a small step to take through it. My hon. Friend said those words in a debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to which she, from the Labour Front Bench, was proposing an amendment that would have extended legal recognition to humanist marriages. That is now nine years ago. As has been the case throughout, she was supported by colleagues from across the House.

Labour supported similar amendments during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. Its efforts led to section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which gives the Government the power to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages by order. In other words, most of the groundwork has been done. Looking back at Hansard, I am struck by the fact that during an earlier debate, when the late Lord Eden of Winton was objecting to the attempt to get humanist marriage into the Bill, my noble Friend Baroness Thornton, speaking for the Labour Front Bench, intervened on him to ask:

“Does the noble Lord think that the humanists need to wait another 19 years for another Bill to come passing by?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 303.]

Well, we are nine years later already, so nearly half of that time has elapsed, and humanists are still waiting.

The Government have been reviewing the matter ever since, with several more years anticipated before they are prepared to legislate. They have not even committed to do so all this time later—the Minister could put that right today. In the face of the High Court decision in Harrison, which now looks a little disingenuous, given the position the Government took in that case, it looks as if Baroness Thornton’s question will sadly prove prescient.

In November last year, I spoke for the Labour Front Bench in the main Chamber on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill. There has been a piecemeal approach to marriage reform over the last few years. I mentioned in that speech that there had been good movement and progressive legislation on civil partnerships and same-sex marriage.

One Bill that I was involved in was a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and, indeed, enacted. It permitted opposite-sex couples to have civil partnerships. That was a peculiarity in the law and perhaps something that needed addressing. Again, it was a long struggle. My constituents Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld fought a four-year battle, going as far as the Supreme Court, for their right to have a civil partnership. The Government do not move easily on these matters, but they move in the end, and I wonder why they have to make it so difficult. With that in mind, my advice would be to learn from their past mistakes and stop dragging their feet by giving legal recognition to humanist marriage, instead of there being further delay.

To answer my question as to why humanists have been made to wait, in 2014 the Government conducted a consultation exercise about extending legal recognition in that way. The result was 95% in favour, but again the Government kicked it into the long grass. At that time, an article in The Sunday Times on the matter quoted a senior Government source as saying:

“Lynton Crosby and the Tories have basically said ‘no way’. They think this is a fringe issue and are saying, ‘why would we do this?’”

If that was an accurate report, Mr Crosby and his colleagues were wrong both to be so dismissive of the fundamental rights and freedoms of humanists and to think it was a fringe matter, given that humanist marriages have proven, even without legal status, to be hugely popular and have grown greatly in popularity in those jurisdictions where they are legally recognised.

As I mentioned, Labour has pledged to give legal recognition to humanist marriage, and that has been its consistent position for many years now. The Government have undermined their own position by introducing outdoor civil and religious marriages, as we have heard. Why are they okay? Why was that change made just a few week ago, but humanist marriage reform is not seen to be a priority? Why have humanists been at the back of the queue for so long, and what reason is there for making them wait any longer?

It is not only Labour that supports humanists and humanist marriages. As I said, colleagues from across the House support legal recognition of them—not just the Members who signed the letter that was published today but those who subscribed to speak in the debate, even if some of them have been unable to attend. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who was for quite a period the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, introduced a Bill to bring about the legal recognition of humanist marriage in 2020. He said:

“The lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales is discrimination, pure and simple.”

[Crispin Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me that I had forgotten the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) to make that precise point about how much he supports the Government moving on the issue.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am glad to have jogged the hon. Gentleman’s memory. To continue with the quotation, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham went on to say:

“This matter has been under review for some seven years now”—

this was two years ago—

“and that’s more than long enough. My Bill would bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages within three months of its passage, thus enabling the many who want a legally recognised humanist marriage to be able to have one now. It would not prevent further changes to the law, after the completion of the present Law Commission review, but would remedy the present discrimination.”

It seems certain that there would have been majority support for such a move, were the Government to have given it sufficient parliamentary time two years ago.

That support can be seen around the rest of the UK. We have heard that humanist marriages were introduced in Scotland in 2005—under a Labour Government, I might add—when the Registrar General identified that he could bring them about by reinterpreting existing legislation that applied to religious marriages. Sadly, the wording of the law in England and Wales renders such an approach here impossible.

Support can also be seen in Northern Ireland, where humanist marriages have been legally recognised since 2018. That was initially brought about by a court case that was necessary as a result of Government inertia during the lengthy collapse of the Executive. However, I understand from Northern Ireland humanists that since the resumption of power sharing they have had nothing but friendly and supportive meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly and Ministers from all parties.

It is worth noting that the Northern Ireland Executive is currently consulting on introducing legislation to put humanist marriages on a firmer statutory footing, rather than relying on the court decision, as at present. That strikes me as a sensible way to go about things: fix the fundamental discrimination of the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages as early as possible, get such marriages going, and then look to develop legislation to put them on the firmest possible footing. Such an approach avoids nine years and counting of consultation, and of disappointment for couples such as Kate Harrison and Christopher Sanderson—Kate being the lead claimant in the 2020 court case. They are waiting for a change in the law before getting married, mirroring the example of my constituents in the civil partnership case, who had to wait years simply to get something that most people regard as a basic human right. They have been waiting for far too long.

We have heard about Wales. Unfortunately for the Welsh, marriage law is not a devolved matter. Last year, the Labour Government in Wales wrote to the UK Government demanding immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages or, failing that, for marriage law to be devolved so that the Welsh Government could act where the UK Government have not. It is manifestly past time for the UK Government to act. I hope that they will now do so.

The law is discriminatory. It treats humanists as second -class citizens. It imposes additional financial burdens on them. The excuse that the Government wish to comprehensively address the issue is clearly wrong because they are approaching matters in a piecemeal way. It would be extremely simple to make the change. On that basis, I simply ask the Minister whether he can confirm what the Government will do—not waiting for the Law Commission initially—to bring humanist marriages into legal effect as quickly as possible. I have received numerous letters from constituents this week and last week—like many Members present, I am sure—in anticipation of the debate, all asking those questions and others.

This is not the only issue outstanding; I also mentioned, the last time we debated marriage, the issue of common-law marriage. I am not suggesting that we wait until we sort that problem out, because that is a problem that affects 3 million couples—6 million people. It has quite significant, and in some cases devastating, financial effects on people who believe they have security but find out upon the death of a partner, or after separation, that they simply do not. There are a lot of further steps that the Government need to take, but that is not a reason for holding up the simple, straightforward and uncontroversial step of giving legal status to humanist marriages. I hope we will hear from the Minister today that that is about to be done with great speed and enthusiasm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I certainly take on board the hon. Lady’s point. Colleagues here this afternoon have made that argument in very strong terms, and it is one that I am mindful of. I also note the individuals who decided not to get married and to wait and see what the Government’s next steps will be following publication of the Law Commission’s report.

In 2014 the Government published a consultation paper and response assessing the potential merits of provision for non-religious belief marriages. It concluded that the matter was complex, and that by allowing humanists to solemnise marriages in unrestricted locations, the Government would create a provision for humanists that would not be available to all groups. To ensure that we consider the implications of changing the law on marriage for all groups, we invited the Law Commission to undertake a review, which is currently under way and is expected to report in July.

The Government remain committed to considering the case for more comprehensive and enduring reform to marriage law once the Law Commission has completed its fundamental review of the law in this area. Options being explored by the Law Commission include offering couples greater flexibility on the form of their own ceremonies; allowing the ceremony to take place in a much broader range of locations; and providing a framework that could allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, and independent celebrants to conduct legally binding weddings.

As part of the review, the Law Commission will consider how marriage by humanist and other non-religious belief organisations could be incorporated into a revised or new scheme that is simple, fair and consistent for all groups. Legislating to allow humanist marriages now would pre-empt the Law Commission’s report, which is expected to provide a framework that could allow for humanist weddings. Although I recognise the frustration that many have felt while waiting for the publication of the Law Commission’s report, it is right that we do this properly through a wholesale reform of marriage law, which can provide for humanist marriage while preventing disparity from being created with other groups.

By looking at the law comprehensively, the Law Commission will be able to ensure that, in so far as possible, groups and couples are all subject to the same rules and the same level of regulation. The Law Commission’s recommendations are expected to eliminate the current situation where a couple with one set of beliefs is legally permitted to marry in one type of location—for example, in a private garden—but a couple with another set of beliefs is not. That reform is not possible by only authorising humanist weddings. The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations when the final report is published, and it is right for us to await the outcome of that.

Separately, since July 2021, couples have been able to have their civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings in the open air in the grounds of buildings such as stately homes and hotels that are approved, or become approved, for civil ceremonies. Outdoor ceremonies were made possible because the Government laid a statutory instrument at significant pace when covid was at a peak in order to give couples more choice of settings, and to support the wedding and civil partnership sector. I think all of us would recognise that that was an important step to take in the context of the pandemic when individuals did of course still want to get married and when there were important considerations for businesses up and down the country. That was the right thing to do.

I am proud that couples were given a lifeline to enable them to have some semblance of normality on their big day when there were restrictions in place. Some have said that was an example of piecemeal reform, but that is not the case. It was a measured response to the most significant public health crisis this country has faced, allowing couples and their loved ones to celebrate their special days safely.

One of many venues to have benefited from the statutory instrument was Hodsock Priory, which said:

“Guests love it as it feels romantic and is COVID safe. It’s a positive experience and asset to our venue.”

As the statutory instrument has effect only until 5 April 2022, it is right that we make these changes permanent.

This week, the Government’s consultation on outdoor marriages and civil partnerships closed. The Government are fulfilling their commitment to carry out a full public consultation on outdoor weddings and to lay a further instrument to make the current time-limited changes permanent in spring 2022. This will continue to provide flexibility and choice to couples, venues and the wider wedding industry, in a sector in which almost 75% of all weddings are civil ceremonies and more than 85% of those are held on approved premises—a sector that has been hit hard by the pandemic.

When the Government announced the temporary measures for civil ceremonies in June 2021, they also committed to legislate to enable outdoor religious marriage when parliamentary time allowed. The outdoor marriage and civil partnerships consultation also sought views on the proposal. This proposed reform to religious wedding ceremonies is being considered to maintain parity between couples seeking a civil or religious wedding by providing similar choice and flexibility and allowing such ceremonies to take place outdoors.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think we are all grateful for the Minister’s sentiments, but I am not sure that we are persuaded by his arguments. Even if we are moving in the right direction, it is going to be another couple of years if we wait for the Law Commission. There is nothing to stop an interim provision, which—if the Minister is concerned about disparities—could limit humanist weddings to approved premises in the same way as civil or religious ceremonies. That would mean that thousands of couples who want to get married and may have been waiting years to do so could go ahead now. It seems unnecessarily harsh to make them wait that length of time, even if the Government do get there in the end.

[Tom Pursglove]

It is my understanding that humanists can get married by their chosen celebrant on approved premises, but that the superintendent registrar and registrar must be present. To allow that to take place without the superintendent registrar or registrar would require an affirmative statutory instrument, which, by itself, would take around eight months to deliver. It would not be an immediate change.

[Andy Slaughter]

We have had some experience in the last two years of getting statutory instruments through in rather less than eight months. I am sure it could be rushed through in four.

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I always try to set expectations in the House at a reasonable level. I do not think it is right to set unrealistic expectations about such things. That is the situation, as I understand it, were we to go down the route he advocates.

I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate—I know he will continue to engage with me on these matters, and I will certainly welcome such opportunities—for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. I wish to reassure him and other hon. Members present that this issue is very much on my radar. The provision of humanist marriages is something that I will carefully consider. However, it needs to be done when the time is right and through proper consideration of all the issues involved. By waiting until the Law Commission provides its recommendations in July 2022, we will have a clear and comprehensive view of the opportunities associated with comprehensive reform to marriage law and options to address the concerns raised during this debate.

As I said at the outset, I am mindful of the strength of feeling in the House on this issue, as well as the strength of feeling among individuals in all our constituencies. My own constituents have written to me about this issue over the last week or so, in advance of the debate, and I am grateful to them for contacting me as their local MP. I am mindful of their strength of feeling. I give the House the undertaking that when the Law Commission produces its report, as the Minister responsible, I will of course want to take a look at it in very short order, progress with these reforms, see what the commission recommends and make informed decisions about how best to proceed.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This has been a short, harmonious and positive debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on her Bill. She has engaged with this topic for many years and she now appears to be on the brink of prosecuting it successfully, having secured Government support.

As we have heard, a 16 or 17-year-old in England and Wales can currently enter into marriage or civil partnership with parental consent. Looking at the bare figures, the number doing so is low. In 2018, fewer than 150 16 and 17-year-olds entered into marriage, out of a total of 235,000 marriages in England and Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, this may understate the nature of the issue, as allowing marriage at 16 blurs the lines and perhaps gives succour to those who support child marriage at even younger ages. By having a clear dividing line at 18 we will unambiguously be saying that there are no circumstances in which children should be entering legal relationships of marriage or civil partnership. The children’s charity Barnardo’s has raised concerns based on research showing that marriage for children aged 16 and 17 can result in their experiencing domestic violence and sexual abuse, and missing out on educational opportunities. As we have heard at length, there are also arguments that marriage at this age can leave vulnerable young people open to coercion and forced marriage. More than 10% of forced marriages involve the 16 and 17-year-old group.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights defines child marriage as

“any marriage where at least one of the parties is under 18 years of age.”

It defines forced marriage as

“a marriage in which one and/or both parties have not personally expressed their full and free consent to the union.”

The Commissioner’s view is that all child marriages equate to forced marriages, as a child cannot give

“full, free and informed consent.”

Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in 2016 that the UK raised the minimum age to 18. Overwhelmingly, the issue affects girls and women; 80% of those who married as children in 2018 were girls. That is by far the strongest argument for raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership, and it is why we are happy to see this Bill get its Second Reading today.

However, if we are really to tackle forced marriage, this Bill alone will not be sufficient. I would like to see more from the Government on how they intend to protect children and young people at risk. How will the Government support those who wish to leave marriages that they have been forced to enter? How can we provide a safe space for people to report a forced marriage? We also recognise the importance of support staff in schools in helping to look out for the signs of forced marriage. For that matter, can we have better training for registry office staff to spot the signs of coercive marriage? We are talking about not only forced marriage, but the increasingly common practice of taking advantage of those who lack capacity for financial gain. Only about a fifth of reports to the Forced Marriage Unit in 2019 were from the victims themselves, with the vast majority of reports—64%—having been by professionals, such as those in the education, social services and legal and health sectors, as well as some other third party organisations, such as non-governmental organisations.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Obviously, this is a most welcome Bill, but the crucial part of it, which we have not talked about today, is how the police are going to investigate and ensure that these offences are prosecuted efficiently and correctly. There have been numerous examples in recent years where issues of safeguarding, serious sexual offending and the protection of victims have not been investigated in an appropriate way by police forces. That must be fundamental to the success of this Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I know from the time we spent together on the Select Committee on Justice that he is very passionate about these matters. Last year, the figures were distorted by the pandemic, but before the pandemic the Forced Marriage Unit supported about 1,400 victims in any given year. That probably underestimates the problem substantially, with many cases going under the radar. The Home Office itself has said:

“Forced marriage is a hidden crime, and these figures will not reflect the full scale of the abuse.”

He is right to draw that to our attention. Everybody else has been very economical in their remarks, and I will attempt to do the same—

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not only passing this Bill, but raising awareness? On forced marriages and other institutions, we need to go to the education system and all other participating institutions to promote the law, so that the children in schools are fully aware of their rights. That is the way forward, as Members have said.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention as well. It could be argued that this Bill is addressing a narrow and specific, albeit important, point, but the ramifications of the Bill go far wider in drawing attention to exactly the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. As the promoter of the Bill said, the current law is almost a century old and outdated—family life has moved on markedly since then. To take just one example, we now require young people to continue their education or take an apprenticeship up to the age of 18, so being able to marry below that age seems to be somewhat in conflict.

The state should always be hesitant about legislating and intruding on family life and relationships, but our record in the past 20 years is good. We have brought in progressive legislation on civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. I was pleased to sponsor, owing to a constituency connection, the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which gave the rights of civil partnership already enjoyed by same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples, thus completing the equation of equal status.

There is more to do: we should legislate on humanist marriage and look at common-law marriage, where millions of people—women in particular—mistakenly find themselves without rights or assets on the death of their partner. However, the Bill is an important and substantial step forward. It is a progressive Bill, and the Opposition wish it well in its remaining stages.

Afghanistan Policy

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I really cannot be expected to make decisions such as the hon. Member describes at the Dispatch Box. The ARAP scheme has been defined by the MOD. We are setting out the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. If there are queries about eligibility, then I encourage her to look at the gov.uk website for greater guidance.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This morning, a family with a very sick child, one of 300 people placed in a quarantine hotel in Shepherd’s Bush, were told to get on a coach to Stockport, despite having lodged an application for housing assistance in Hammersmith. On Saturday, 90 Afghan evacuees arrived at a bridging hotel in Fulham with no money, the clothes they stood up in, and no information about what was happening to them. A local charity, West London Welcome, and our council are trying to help. If we try to get through to the Home Office, it does not answer emails or phone calls. Is this what the Minister means by Operation Warm Welcome?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That sums up the balancing exercise that the Government are drawing on the advice of the independent police inspectorate. The Bill does not stop the freedom to demonstrate; it balances it with the rights and liberties of others. The existing laws are 35 years old. We want to update them and also implement the recommendations of the independent Law Commission.

It will continue to be the case that the police attach conditions to only a small proportion of protests. To put that in context, in a three-month period earlier this year, the assessment of the National Police Chiefs’ Council was that of more than 2,500 protests, no more than a dozen had conditions attached to them: 12 out of 2,500.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will not because I genuinely have other matters to address.

In deciding whether to attach conditions, including in respect of the generation of noise, the police will continue, as they do now, to take into consideration protesters’ freedom of speech and assembly.

I move on now to unauthorised encampments. Similarly, there seems to be misunderstanding about what the Bill is attempting to do. It is not an attack on the nomadic lifestyle. Proposed new section 60C(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sets out conditions applicable if

“significant damage… significant disruption”

or

“significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Victoria Atkins]

I have one more minute.

We are trying to tackle harmful behaviour, and Opposition Members need to ask themselves just how much damage, disruption and distress is acceptable for their constituents to bear.

I will quickly deal with the extraction of information. This is an important part of the Bill, because we want to ensure that strong privacy safeguards are in place when dealing with people’s sensitive personal information. This Bill, coupled with the rape review, is an absolutely critical part of that effort.

Mindful that the House will want to vote on these matters, I will conclude. We promised our constituents that we would take measures to make our society safer and to crack down on crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) set out, that is the promise we all made to our constituents. We are delivering on promises made to the electorate and standing up for the decent members of society who do not commit the sorts of crimes that we in this Chamber have sadly had to hear about. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s point, which he makes powerfully. We have already changed our inadmissibility rules to enable the sort of thing that he is describing, and we are in discussions to help make those operational. He rightly says that people should not be entering the UK illegally and dangerously having come from a safe place where they could reasonably have claimed asylum, and that most certainly includes France.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The Home Office’s treatment of asylum seekers is appalling. Will the Minister address the latest scandal: the failure to provide new prepayment Aspen cards, which has left many individuals and families without any money at all for several weeks? In my constituency, many asylum seekers are reliant on a local charity, West London Welcome, for food and necessities, because the Minister’s Department cannot or will not do its job.

[Chris Philp]

There have been some delays with the new Aspen cards, which are in the process of being rapidly resolved. However, I categorically reject the allegation that the Home Office, the Government and the UK are not doing their reasonable bit to support asylum seekers. As I have said, the cost of providing asylum support to these 60,000 people now amounts to £1 billion a year, so any suggestion that there is a lack of generosity or there is a meanness of spirit is categorically and completely untrue.

Safe Streets for All

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

This Queen’s Speech displays a hostility towards democracy and the rule of law, with a planning Bill that shifts power from elected local government to developers, which is a recipe for poorer-quality homes, the ruination of townscapes and fewer affordable homes; a voter registration Bill that aims to disenfranchise millions because, in the Conservative party’s opinion, they tend to vote the wrong way; a freedom of speech Bill that will curtail and proscribe the freedoms of universities; a proposal to hand the power to decide the date of the general election, for party advantage, to the Prime Minister; a renewed attempt to prevent public bodies considering human rights and international law in purchasing, procurement and investment decisions; and, four years after Grenfell Tower burned, a building safety Bill that does not begin to address the malpractices that tragedy exposed.

Three Bills in particular subjugate the individual to the state: the police Bill, the judicial review Bill and the borders Bill. We are familiar with the police Bill—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Parts 3 and 4 are a sustained attack on civil rights, curtailing free assembly and free speech, and criminalising a way of life and the ethnic groups who pursue it. This weekend, The Times carried a provocative article that advocated ending both the requirement for local authorities to create Traveller sites and the ethnic minority status of Gypsies and Travellers. That just encapsulates the policy of this Home Secretary.

The borders Bill seeks to create two tiers of asylum seekers, the lower of which—those with temporary protection status—will have fewer rights and harsher treatment than now. That is likely to be in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, but this is a Government who do not worry about obeying the law. The recent Faulks inquiry into judicial review saw little to criticise in the system of legal MOTs that has developed over decades, and which mature Governments see as a means of road testing their decisions and powers. The Lord Chancellor spurns the judgment of his own independent review and presses on with a far more aggressive attempt to clip the judges’ wings. He wants to change the law before he has even seen the outcome of his review of the review.

There are shocking omissions here, too: no proposals for social care and no Bill to end no-fault evictions. Areas such as Hammersmith are in the bottom league for levelling-up funds, despite having some of the poorest communities in the country and having suffered the deepest austerity cuts in the past decade. There is nothing here to stop private companies such as the greedy US conglomerate Centene having free rein to buy up GP practices across England. These are examples of bias, self-interest and neglect at the heart of Government policy, but it is the trampling on civil liberties and constitutional rights that will make this otherwise forgettable Queen’s Speech notorious.

Support for Asylum Seekers

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The Home Office is knowingly presiding over an asylum accommodation and dispersal system that sees some of the most vulnerable people in the UK forced into squalid and overcrowded accommodation in dilapidated barracks or rodent-infested hotels. Covid-19 rips through dormitories and medical attention is slow to arrive or missing entirely. There is no access to support services or advice. Large groups of people have lived in small, unventilated rooms through lockdown. Food packages provided to children, which were supposed to be nutritious, fell far below any such standard and included pasta floating in milk and even raw chicken. There are reports of malnourishment, in one case resulting in hospitalisation and in another preventing a mother from breastfeeding her child.

The people in question have fled war and violence and are in desperate need of peace, security and stability. Post-traumatic stress disorder is common among those housed in the accommodation. Yet they are subject to banging on the door and an instruction that they will be moved, sometimes the next morning and sometimes within the next 20 minutes, to a new, unknown location.

West London Welcome, an inspirational charity in my constituency, has been supporting asylum seekers housed in contingency accommodation hotels in west London since last summer with food, clothes, advice, access to legal aid, and GP and school registrations. It currently supports 300 people and has had 1,300 visits from asylum seekers to its free clothing shop in the last four months. I shall describe some of the people it has helped.

M, an asylum-seeking teenager, was dispersed in mid-February from Fulham to Liverpool and then Stoke-on-Trent. In temporary accommodation in Liverpool, M had no money and no food so West London Welcome sent him hardship money and organised food to be sent to him from the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and Scouse Kitchen. R and her husband and children were left waiting until the very last minute at a hotel in Fulham and then moved to Croydon. It turned out that their 14-year-old son had covid-19—they were not tested before being moved—and he ended up in the intensive care unit. From there they have been moved to Hounslow, which has meant three schools in two months.

F, her husband and children were at the same hotel and she contracted covid-19 while pregnant. Immediately after giving birth, she was sent to the ICU where she remained for three months. Her family were moved to east London, despite promises to find them housing near the hospital where she remained in intensive care. When she came out of the hospital in March and joined her family, they still had not been given the £8 per week support money. The children have not been to school for two months. S, her husband and children were given notice at 8 pm to move at 7.30 am the next day, but were not told where they were going.

Those stories are the bitter reality of the system over which the Government presides. The care of asylum seekers has been contracted out to a hierarchy of poor providers and profit-taking middlemen, but the buck stops with the Government. They should be ashamed and embarrassed, but those are not words we associate with this Home Secretary; rather, there is a feeling that this is all as she intends.

Trespass

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be before you in Westminster Hall, Mr Bone. I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating the debate, which has come slightly later than we envisaged—it was due to take place in January. If anything, it is now more relevant, as the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said.

We have had Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and we heard the arguments put forward then. I must compliment the hon. Lady on putting forward a balanced argument, but in her effort to do that, what shone through was how strong the arguments are on the side against this wholly unnecessary provision, which is being included in the Bill for reasons on which I will speculate in a moment.

There is no reason for the provision. If the petition had not been closed, as they are after six months, I am sure that we would by now have had many more than the 135,000 signatures. Lots of groups are threatened by the criminalisation of trespass: ramblers, who have been mentioned; off-road cyclists; canoeists; wild campers; those who are forced to live in a vehicle because of homelessness or other circumstances; and those who care about and want access to the countryside.

In their response to the consultation on the Bill, the Government have implied that many of those groups are not the target. Two questions spring from that. First, the Government have not persuaded anyone. As the Ramblers said in the briefing for this debate, the legislation is vaguely drafted and many of the proposals are unclear in both scope and reach, which risks criminalising activities such as wild camping when accessed by a motor vehicle or bicycle, as well as the legitimate right to protest. The Bill would allow the police to take action on an officer’s suspicion that someone might intend to reside. It would give the minority of landowners who might wish to make the countryside a hostile place for those seeking to enjoy it for recreation a powerful new tool to deter users. The potential for abuse of the legislation is obvious and significant. The Bill would send a signal that the countryside is not an open resource that is accessible to all, but a place of complex rules and regulations, with criminal sanctions for breaching them.

If the Government did succeed in so limiting the Bill by a further amendment in Committee or at a later stage, the issue of who is primarily the target would become clearer: Gypsy and Traveller communities, and those who adopt a nomadic lifestyle through choice or necessity. I say this regretfully: I can only reach the conclusion that it is a rather nasty racist little attempt to attack minority ethnic communities already suffering severe discrimination, and other socially marginalised groups. I will repeat something I said when speaking about the Bill on Second Reading, that

“no family willingly stops somewhere they are not welcome, and which has no running water, waste disposal or electricity”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 88.]—

and where they will be harassed.

The reason for unauthorised encampments is the lack of authorised sites, be they permanent or transit sites. The number of permanent or transit sites on aggregate has gone down over the past ten years by several hundred, and by over 8% in total. Gypsies and Travellers are among the most marginalised and discriminated against groups in the country. Their outcomes in health, education and life expectancy are the worst of any ethnic minority group, and proper provision is simply not made. There are 354 transit pitches across the whole of England, and only 29 local authorities provide them. If there is nowhere to go that is of an authorised nature, then what alternative is there but to use unauthorised sites? There are 1,696 households on the waiting list for pitches, with only 59 vacant pitches on permanent sites and 42 on transit sites.

In responding to the petition, the Government said:

“The law of trespass is largely one of common law, with the courts developing the law and resolving disputes based on the circumstances of the case. However, following the ‘Powers for Dealing with Unauthorised Development and Encampments’ consultation in 2018, it was clear”—

clearly it was not clear, because most people opposed the provision responding to that consultation—

“that action is needed to address the sense of unease and intimidation residents feel when an unauthorised encampment occurs.”

That is an insidious piece of text. First, it is good that the control of trespass is brought up by the common law over the centuries. Secondly, there is plenty of legislation on the matter, notably the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That legislation was seen as draconian at the time, and this goes much further. Over the past two decades, law enforcement and nomadic communities have tried to make the current law work by guidance, negotiation and compromise. The police Bill strips away all of that experience and sets up confrontation, arbitrary use of power, and the threat of arrest, imprisonment, loss of home and perhaps of families. For what purpose? So that the Home Secretary can indulge in a bit of dog-whistle politics.

If people think I am exaggerating, I chaired a seminar earlier today, organised by the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, to hear the real-life experiences of Gypsies and Travellers, and to hear from their advocates in the Friends, Families and Travellers movement who were loyally supporting those communities. They all do an excellent job. We heard stories of Traveller families who had booked official caravan sites, only to be turned away on arrival. The racism of Pontins in refusing access on the grounds of ethnicity is far from rare.

Without access to legal sites, where are families supposed to go? Under the current law, there was at least a chance of negotiating an organised departure, and the discretion lies with the police whose guidance says that only where there is “damage”, “abusive behaviour” or multiple vehicles should precipitous action be taken. Under the new law, we apparently need to address the sense of “unease” that local residents might feel, an “intention to reside” or the likelihood of causing “damage, disruption or distress”.

Has there ever been a law so disingenuously or vaguely worded? It is clear why, because in their frequently answered questions, the Government give the explanation that “strengthened police powers” and the new offences

“could also deter unauthorised encampments from being set up in the first instance.”

This is designed to frighten people into taking no action at all. It is designed to attack the principles of nomadic life, which the Government have already attacked by changing the definition of what Gypsies and Travellers means.

If the legislation is passed unamended, it will have a rough ride in the courts. It is already clear that it violates important principles of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. No one with any sense supports this unnecessary and vindictive provision—certainly not the police. Only 21% of police organisations responded positively to the proposals and the consultation, while 94% called for more site provision.

I know that other Members are waiting to speak and that I have taken my allotted time. I simply say to the Minister that this is the time to consider what changes will be made to the detail of the Bill. Part 4 adds nothing useful to the current law. It will do huge damage to relations between settled communities and Gypsies and Travellers. It will put the police in an extremely difficult position. It will suck in whole groups of other people who, whether this is the intention or not, are also severely worried about the consequences. Let us have a sensible and mature rethink and let us drop these invidious proposals now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a great pleasure to appear under your beneficent hand on this beautiful spring day, Mr Bone. As I am sure colleagues are aware, the debate was convened on the strength of an online petition submitted on 5 September last year. Since then, the Government have published our response to the public consultation “Strengthening Police Powers to Tackle Unauthorised Encampments”, and we have introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which sets out our measures to introduce the new criminal offence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) for her introduction to the debate, and to all hon. Members who have participated.

I understand that those who signed the petition were primarily concerned about the impact that the new offence might have on the ancient freedoms of walkers and the wider public to access the countryside. As somebody who represents 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland in the northern part of Hampshire, I am pleased to be able to say that those who wish to enjoy the countryside, including in my constituency, will not be prevented from doing so by the offence. We made that clear in our response to the consultation, and the clauses currently before Parliament set out the circumstances in which the new powers can be used.

Our proposals, which were included in our manifesto, are aimed squarely at unauthorised encampments. For many of our constituents, and for landowners, those cause damage, destruction or distress, as well as causing significant cost to local authorities. Residents often feel helpless as their local amenities are damaged or disrupted, and for some councils, such as in Birmingham in 2016, with £700,000 of clean-up costs, the bills can be huge. I have seen that repeatedly in my own constituency.

It is only right, then, that the Government seek to protect citizens and strike a balance for those who are adversely affected by unauthorised encampments. The measures that we are introducing in the Bill will give the police the powers to bring an end to the misery caused by some unauthorised encampments. The new criminal offence will apply where a person who resides on land with a vehicle causes significant damage, disruption or distress and does not leave when asked to do so. That means that the powers will not apply to people camping in tents in the countryside or to others who inadvertently stray on to private land.

The Government have also amended the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which gives police the power to direct people away from land in the first instance when they are causing lower levels of harm, disruption or distress. We will broaden the types of harm that can be caught under that provision to include physical damage to the land and non-physical damage, such as damage to the environment, which includes excessive noise and litter. Disruption includes an interference with a person’s ability to access any facilities located on the land or otherwise make lawful use of the land, or with a supply of water, energy or fuel. Offensive conduct, such as threats or abuse, is also covered. We will also increase from three months to 12 months the period for which trespassers directed away from the land must not return. We will enable police to direct people away from land that forms part of a highway.

I reassure hon. Members again that those who wish to access the countryside to walk, hike, climb or cycle—as many of us love to do—will not be caught by the measures. We all have the right to enjoy the beautiful national parks and green spaces that this country has to offer, and we will be able to continue to exercise that right, even when the Bill is passed. I am sure that that will come as welcome relief to those clubs, associations and individuals who have taken the time to write to their MPs or the Home Office about the issue.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister explain why he thinks that the organisations that he indicates, such as the Ramblers Association, whose comments I read out, are not at all persuaded by the Government’s view? Will he, the Minister for Policing, address the police’s concerns? They do not believe that the provisions are sensible. Will he also address what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said about equalities and human rights law? He must be familiar with the leading cases of Chapman v. UK and Bromley v. Persons Unknown. Does he think he will face legal challenges if this goes through?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will come on to many of those issues later in my speech if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

We received significant support in the consultation for some of these measures. Some 94% of local authorities that responded to the consultation supported one or more of the proposed amendments. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, will extend the powers of the police to direct trespassers away from land.

During the passage of the Bill, I hope we will be able to reassure the groups that have perhaps taken alarm at these measures that they will not be affected. Let us remember that there is the lock that significant harm and disruption must be under way and that people must be residing with a vehicle, so this does not cover ramblers, who, presumably, are without a vehicle—I am not sure whether a canoe counts as a vehicle or indeed whether one can reside in a canoe. Therefore, those who are wild camping or enjoying the countryside will be unaffected. Hopefully, that will come as a relief.

I now turn to the impact on Traveller communities set out in the petition statement. The legislation is not anti-Traveller and it would be wrong to portray it as such. We know that a small minority of people in unauthorised encampments cause harm, disruption and distress, but the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens, and unauthorised sites can often give an unfair and negative image of their communities. Enforcement will obviously not be based on ethnicity. Rather, anyone who causes significant harm, disruption or distress under the specified conditions and who refuses to leave when asked to do so will be caught by the offence. The Government want to ensure fair and equal treatment for all travelling communities. Settled and travelling communities should be able to live side by side harmoniously, and indeed integrate. We hope that the clear rules and boundaries that we are putting in place will facilitate that. The police are fully trained, and we expect that their actions will continue to be compliant with equality and human rights law.

The Government remain committed to developing a cross-Government strategy, as mentioned by my shadow, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), to tackle the inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. We are also committed to supporting the provision of Traveller sites via the new homes bonus. This provides an incentive for local authorities to encourage housing growth in their areas and rewards net increases in effective housing stock, including the provision of authorised Traveller pitches.

In addition, the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver a wide range of affordable homes to meet the housing needs of people in different circumstances and different housing markets, and will include funding for new Traveller pitches. Data shows that we have seen an increase in the number of caravans on authorised sites from 14,498 in July 2010 to 20,043 in July 2019, showing that this locally led planning system works. We expect that local planning authorities should assess the need for Traveller sites in their areas and make provision accordingly. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the number and location of such sites locally, having due regard to national policy and local circumstances.

Finally, I note that the e-petition refers to the impact that the new offence will have on clamping down on peaceful protest. Of course, the right to protest is a fundamental human right and is central to our democracy. Although the new offences do not apply to protests, we are introducing other measures in the Bill that will enable the police to better manage highly disruptive protests, striking a better balance between the rights of protestors and the rights of others to go about their business unhindered.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will not. I hope this Chamber is reassured that the measures the Government are taking are right, balanced and measured. We are delivering on one of the manifesto commitments that we were elected on. I commend the Government’s response to the e-petition.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

Ask almost anyone involved in the criminal justice system for their priorities, and they will not say, “More new offences, types and lengths of sentences, and further layers of complexity masquerading as action”; they will point to the backlog in the courts, the lack of resources for everything from legal aid to prisons, and the systemic failure at every turn from investigation and charge, to trial and disposal. Some measures in the Bill are helpful, but parts are oppressive and downright dangerous. I refer particularly to parts 3 and 4, which amount to a sustained attack on civil liberties, free expression and movement by an intolerant Government who are increasingly careless of the rule of law.

Given the time restraints, I will set up the case against part 4 of the Bill. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma are the most discriminated against and marginalised ethnic minority in UK society—indeed, the action of Pontins management reminded us of that only days ago. The Bill targets those communities, and it criminalises what has hitherto been the civil offence of trespass on land. It makes the direct threat of imprisonment and heavy fines for matters that were previously resolved through negotiation or in the civil courts. The Bill threatens, not just for the act of trespass but for an intention to trespass, to seize and forfeit any vehicle involved in that trespass, which in the case of nomadic people means losing their home and all their possessions.

Only 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites. The police response to the proposals was unequivocal:

“trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so…no new criminal trespass offence is required.”

No family willingly stops somewhere they are not welcome, and which has no running water, waste disposal or electricity. They do so for the lack of either permanent or transit sites. Only 29 councils in England provide transit sites—a mere 354 places.

Evictions will run for 12 months, and it is not difficult to imagine a concerted campaign to exclude Travellers from whole areas of the country, contrary to the recent judgment in the London Borough of Bromley v. Persons Unknown. The judge in that case concluded that

“the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another.”

Preventing that potentially breaches both equality and human rights law, as the shadow Home Secretary said earlier. The Home Secretary may not care about any of this, but many people do. She would be well advised to drop these racist and draconian proposals from the Bill before it progresses any further.

Fire Safety Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

This Bill is very important to me and my constituents, and I want to pay tribute to the Grenfell community—the bereaved and the survivors. I want the Bill to be implemented as quickly and as robustly as possible so that it is not subject to any future uncertainty or challenge.

We need to get on with this. We need to stop all the ping-ponging between this place and the other place. It is very clear that there is a systematic scheme here. There is this Bill, which is very simple. We have had the consultation on the fire safety orders and the regulation. We need to get on with that. We need to implement that work and then get on with it. We then need the Building Safety Bill. That needs to come to this House and, again, we need to get on with it. We owe that to my constituents.

The first phase of the Grenfell inquiry report came out in October 2019, 16 months ago. We, collectively—both in this place and the other place—need to get this legislation implemented and make sure that these dangerous buildings are remediated. The more we talk, the more we argue, nothing gets done—and there are dangerous buildings out there.

We have a simple piece of legislation that we can get enacted. We have a big pot of money. The totality of the pot could be as high as £10 billion. Let us implement this legislation, let us start assessing and prioritising the buildings, and let us start spending this Government money. We have time to review the details of the financing scheme. I just want to make the point that, yes, the Government are taking responsibility for buildings over 18 metres, but there is a reason for that: buildings over 18 metres, according to all the independent risk assessors, are way more dangerous. They are four times more likely to have fatalities.

I empathise hugely with leaseholders, but there is still a subsidy in there for leaseholders of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres. So let us just get on with this today. After that, we can review the details of the financing package and amend the Building Safety Bill, but this Bill is the first step and we need to get on with it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

It is shameful that this modest Bill is the Government’s legislative response thus far to Grenfell, almost four years after that tragedy took place. We might expect, therefore, that it would at least address the most significant and urgent wrongs that the Grenfell fire brought to the Government’s attention. The purpose of the Bill is to update the fire safety order and better manage and reduce the risk of fire. What better and more straightforward way of achieving that than to implement the recommendations of part 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, which deals with issues such as the inspection and maintenance of lifts and doors, and having proper systems of evacuation in place and communicated to residents? It is impossible to imagine those steps, backed by the moral and legal authority of the inquiry, not becoming law. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 2.

Although safety is the paramount concern, the treatment of leaseholders and tenants living in unsafe blocks is a wholly new scandal that this Bill will fail to address unless Lords amendment 4 is agreed today. Those tenants should not bear the cost of remedial work to their flats where they did not and could not have known the risks posed by their construction. The Government do not seek to deny that, but instead make a series of partial concessions. That is the wrong approach. We should start, as amendment 4 does, with the presumption that remedial costs attributable to the Bill should not be borne by leaseholders. They should not be borne by tenants or social landlords either, or by the rents of the least well off or the limited funds set aside for the provision and repairing of social homes.

The cynical disregard for the lives of our fellow citizens that Grenfell exposed will take years, billions of pounds and the concentrated efforts of the Government and industry to address. Building design, materials, construction, maintenance and inspection are all in the dock. Height is a factor, but so is who the occupants and users are and how they are taught to behave, especially in an emergency.

For the Government constantly to adopt a reductive approach to the crisis is irresponsible. This is not just about one or two types of cladding, buildings over 18 metres or residential buildings. Today is an opportunity not to address all those issues, important as they are, but to show a serious intent to act now on the most obvious faults and injustices. The Government should take it by accepting all the amendments before the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). This is a horrendously complicated issue involving cladding—ACM, high-pressure laminate and other forms of inflammable cladding—fire safety measures and the height of buildings. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have come up with the money to remedy the most unsafe buildings—tall buildings—and the cladding that was put on them, which fails to provide safe accommodation to residents.

The reality is that the £5.1 billion will remediate only the unsafe cladding and will not do the comprehensive work. The issue then becomes one of the fire safety work that has to be carried out as well. There is no funding to provide for that, so it has to be paid for by someone.

I have a series of suggested tests that could apply. The first is that, emerging from the Grenfell inquiry, it is quite clear that the ACM cladding was illegal, so those responsible for developing the cladding and putting it on the building must pay for the remediation in all other buildings where that is the case. Similarly, for other forms of unsafe cladding, if those people fail to accord with the building regulations that exist at the time, they should pay the cost of removing and correcting it.

Leaseholders could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the fire safety issues when they bought the leases on their flats, so the fundamental issue is that they should not have to pay the cost of remediation, either of cladding or of fire safety defects. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he finds the amendments defective. My challenge to him, when he responds to this debate, is to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government will bring forward proposals in the Lords to amend the Bill to make sure leaseholders do not pay.

The defence seems to be that the Building Safety Bill will eventually come through and be implemented. The problem is that we have sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill and recommended at least 40 changes to it. It will take probably 18 months for it to reach the statute book, and then we have the secondary legislation. Leaseholders do not have the time: this work needs to be carried out now. The industry estimates that it will take some four years to implement all the safety works required. It must be made clear that the leaseholders are not the ones to pay.

Currently, leaseholders cannot insure or sell their properties and no one wants to buy them. We are in danger of freezing the housing market because of this problem. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to—