Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says about the housing fund for temporary accommodation, but what we need to be doing is reducing the number of families in temporary accommodation. Four years have passed since the Government first promised to end section 21 evictions, and now 70,000 children are coming home from school each night to sleep in temporary accommodation. For a child being brought up in a hotel room, doing their homework on the bathroom floor and eating their dinner perched on the bed, the opportunity to make the most of their life is out of their control. So I ask the Minister how many more children must face eviction before she meets the promise?

[Felicity Buchan]

We are absolutely committed to repealing section 21—there is no question about that. As I have said, the numbers for those in temporary accommodation are disappointing but we do have a very holistic approach: building more housing, building more affordable homes, and enabling local authorities to go out and build and purchase temporary accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Public service workers and local leaders across the country are working incredibly hard to improve their local areas and provide vital services, so rather than the begging bowl culture that makes them bid for money, will the Minister take forward Labour’s commitment for a long-term, more secure funding settlement to allow them to plan for the future?

[Simon Hoare]

I am intrigued by what the right hon. Lady proffers to the House. Only a few weeks ago, in the debate on the local government finance settlement—none of her colleagues apart from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, and those on the Front Bench could be bothered to turn up and speak on it—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is sitting next to her on the Front Bench, said:

“As I will come on to say shortly, we will have a review to look at the long-term plans. We understand the problems that local government is facing.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 326.]

May I say to the right hon. Lady that part of the job of being in Opposition is to work out the policies that she may want to deliver in government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I am glad that my delayed Avanti West Coast train got me here on time, with a sprint for me at the end.

Data revealed by the Centre for Cities today shows that after 14 years, towns and cities in every corner of our country have been levelled down, left behind and left out of pocket. On average, people are over £10,000 a year worse off as a result of the sluggish growth since 2010. Analysis of the country’s largest cities and towns reveals that every place is out of pocket, north and south, from former industrial towns to major cities. Fourteen years after taking power, does the Minister accept that the British people are worse off now than they were then?

[Jacob Young]

I absolutely do not accept that. The right hon. Lady seems to forget the reality that we have had a financial crash, covid-19 and the Scottish Government failing to support cities like Aberdeen with the oil and gas industry. She can look at the evidence of what we are doing through levelling up. We have invested more than £4.8 billion of levelling-up funding directly into communities the length and breadth of the country, and we will continue to do that.

[Angela Rayner]

The Minister says “look at the evidence” and I am looking at the evidence—14 years of a Conservative Government, elected on a promise to level up the country, which has left working people worse off. In Manchester, the average household is over £8,000 a year out of pocket. Down the road in Burnley, the loss amounts to £28,000. Will they now listen to our proposals to reform planning, reinstate housing targets and get Britain building again, or will the country have to suffer another final year of failure?

[Jacob Young]

The Labour party has bankrupted Birmingham, and it would bankrupt Britain. We have made huge progress towards levelling up, including by rolling out gigabit broadband, introducing educational investment in areas, opening new freeports, increasing the national living wage, recruiting more police officers, funding regeneration and community ownership, and devolving more power to local Mayors. We will continue to level up.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Third Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill because it does not effectively address the problem it rightly seeks to solve, is incompatible with international law and UN Security Council Resolutions, risks undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, includes needlessly broad and sweeping draconian powers while placing unprecedented restrictions on public bodies to express a view on current and proposed policy and represents a major departure from the UK Government’s long-established diplomatic position on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights, in a way that undermines the UK’s future credibility and capacity to support diplomatic negotiations towards a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine based on a two-state solution, at a time when consistent support for that objective is more important than ever.”

Let me start by making clear that the Labour party completely opposes a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. It is in everyone’s interest that we find a way forward to address a genuine problem. Never has that been as important as it is now, at a time of heightened tensions, fear and distress both at home and abroad.

As such, throughout the passage of this Bill, we have always tried to seek consensus. We do not think it is wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In fact, there is a long tradition of councils and other bodies taking stances on such questions. However, there is a difference between applying consistent ethical principles and legitimate criticism of foreign Governments, and what some have tried to do by targeting just one individual state—for example, the world’s only Jewish state—or, worse, using the cover of these issues to whip up prejudice or discrimination. That is completely wrong. For the Labour party, that will never change, and I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging that we share common ground on those fundamental principles. On that basis, I had hoped that by now we would have a Bill that reflects that common ground.

However, unfortunately, our efforts for consensus have been met with blanket refusal. Four times we have come to this House with an alternative approach, and four times Ministers have led Government Members in voting down every single one of those proposals, seeking not to unite the House but to divide it in every sense. We did not want to be in this position, where the House is being told to approve such a deeply flawed piece of legislation, but regrettably that is where we have ended up, because the Bill before us is indeed deeply flawed.

The Bill contains sweeping new powers that create more uncertainty and run counter to our international obligations: provisions that would ban public bodies from making procurement decisions based on a country’s use of forced labour; a completely unprecedented clause that makes it illegal for public bodies, many of them directly elected, to express their view on policy; a new power for the Secretary of State himself to call in and interrogate those he suspects fall foul of the Bill; and, at its heart, a measure that is incompatible with both the Government’s own long-standing foreign policy and international law, flying in the face of the UK’s obligations. That is why I respectfully dispute what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. Explicitly equating Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights is an unprecedented step. To my knowledge, this wording has never appeared in British statute before, and it seriously undermines our country’s long-standing, consistent and cross-party support for a two-state solution, so I could not be more disappointed.

There are moments when all sides of this House come together to resolve the deep-seated issues facing our communities, and this could have been one of them. Instead, the Government have refused to listen, so as the Bill is read a Third time, we have had to put forward a reasoned amendment as a final plea to the Secretary of State to reconsider. We all know that this is a highly unusual procedure, so I want to make it clear why we have deemed it necessary. We recognise that there is a problem to solve and we want to solve it too, but if this Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts, creates more uncertainty than it addresses or, worse, simply fuels yet more division, it will have achieved nothing. It could, in fact, make matters worse.

I have no doubt that this Bill will be scrutinised and challenged if sent to our colleagues in the other place. I can only hope that we find further opportunities to forge a consensus, but the Bill before the House is simply not fit to send to them. The greatest shame is that, in this challenging time, we had the chance to speak with one voice against discrimination and division, and for unity at home and lasting peace abroad, and it is in that spirit that I urge the whole House to support our amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Let me say at the outset that we do not intend to oppose the Bill today. Simply, it is better late than never. May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments at the start of the debate, because many people have contributed and campaigned on this issue over the years that it has been spoken about? Many have long needed this overdue Bill, and they need it to be improved. Leaseholders across the country have been waiting for years—six years, to be exact—to see the Government’s flagship Bill to end leasehold and to break free the millions of people trapped in what the Secretary of State himself describes as a feudal and absurd system of home ownership.

If this is the Secretary of State going in a hurry, I would hate to see his normal pace. It was back in 2017 that his fifth predecessor as Housing Secretary pledged action. He talked a good talk today, and he is theatrical. I love the passion—it is really there—and I love the “squeeze”. We want to see the squeeze, but frankly I have lost count of the number of times Ministers have promised to finally put Britain in line with other developed countries across the world that have all ended this medieval system. To be fair to the Secretary of State, none of them has said it is an assault on leasehold and a squeeze on income, so he is going a little bit further, but after all that time and all those promises and after that theatrical squeeze, we still have a Bill that does not actually abolish leasehold. I suppose that that is no surprise, as it comes alongside a Bill that pledges to ban section 21 no-fault evictions that does not ban no-fault evictions and a Bill to stop the small boats that does not stop the small boats.

It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to say that the Government plan to amend the Bill in the usual way, but is it too much to ask for the Government to include a clause that bans leasehold in a Bill whose stated purpose was to ban leasehold? Why make those promises, only to produce a Bill that does no such thing? In a word, it sounds like chaos. Even the day before it was published, the Department’s press release said that the Bill would ban developers from selling new houses under leasehold. Given the tiny proportion of leaseholds that are houses, rather than flats, it is hardly an ambitious pledge, but the Bill does not even introduce that ban.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with what I said to the Secretary of State? The Government could have stopped this, if they had not done the Help to Buy scheme, which fuelled this practice among large developers. They could have stopped it in its tracks, if they had stopped the finance to those companies. Does she also agree that expectations have been raised among a lot of the leaseholders who were put into the trap of their houses being leasehold? They thought they were going to get out of that trap, when actually they are not.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government have been in government for 13 years. We have had six years of these promises, and he is absolutely right that there is more than one way that the Government could have ensured that leaseholders were not treated in this way. The botched drafting of the Bill means we are still waiting to see a single clause that prohibits a single new leasehold property, whether it is a flat or a house.

It was on 30 January this year that the Secretary of State promised my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy),

“we will maintain our commitment to abolish the feudal system of leasehold. We absolutely will. We will bring forward legislation shortly.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]

In February, he said he aimed in the forthcoming King’s Speech

“to introduce legislation to fundamentally reform the system…to end this feudal form of tenure”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 3.]

In May, the then Housing Minister told this House that

“my Department are working flat out”—[Official Report, 23 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 214.]

on the legislation. If it has taken them this long with not a word to show for it, can they guarantee that they will put their amendments to the House by 30 January next year—a full 12 months after the Secretary of State’s promise at the Dispatch Box?

We have heard the Secretary of State say that it is perfectly normal to bring forward vast swathes of amendments in Committee—believe me, the Committee will be doing some considerable heavy lifting. Having shadowed him through the final stages of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I would say that perhaps he does think that making endless last-minute amendments to his own Bills is a normal way of legislating, but the anonymous sources close to the Secretary of State may have let the cat out of the bag about the real reason the Bill is so empty when they briefed the press last month. We know from them what he cannot admit today: the Prime Minister was blocking this Bill from the King’s Speech in the face of lobbying from vested interests opposing the reform. In the chaos of this Government, it was added only at the very last minute. We may have heard many warm words, and the Secretary of State was very theatrical about his ambition for reform, but he is stuck in the daily Tory doom loop in which vested interests always come before the national interest.

The truth is that the time wasting and backtracking all go back to the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to extend the lease on No. 10 Downing Street. The fact is that even if the Government belatedly fix their leasehold house loophole, flat owners will be left out of the picture, yet 70% of all leasehold properties are flats and there are over 600,000 more owner-occupied leasehold flats than houses in England. Having listened to the Secretary of State, those owners will still be wondering just when the Government will fulfil their pledge to them. As I am sure everyone in the House will agree, property law is, by nature, extremely complex, but we cannot and must not lose sight of the daily impact that these laws have on the lives of millions across our country, including over 5 million owners of leasehold properties in England and Wales. I am sure that most of us in the House know what that means in human terms for our constituents.

For most freehold homeowners, ownership means security and control, yet for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Too many leaseholders face constant struggles with punitive and ever rising ground rents—rent for a home that they actually own, in exchange for which the freeholder needs to do nothing at all. Leaseholders are locked into expensive agreements and face unjustified administration fees and extortionate charges. Conditions are imposed with little or no consultation. For leaseholders also affected by the building safety crisis, the situation is even worse.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady has made it clear from the Dispatch Box that she opposes excessive ground rents. Can she explain why the Labour leader made it clear at the Labour party conference that he would get new houses built by creating “attractive investment products” that had residential ground rents at their heart? How can it possibly be the case that she intends to deal with excessive ground rents, when the leader of the Labour party wanted to fund new development by pursuing precisely that policy? Which is it: against them or for them?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the Secretary of State, but he has just used the word “excessive”. If he wants to let me deal with this problem, I am happy to take over and show that I am not just about theatrical performances at the Dispatch Box; I will actually deal with it. He has been given 13 years on the Government Benches and has failed to do that. This Bill still fails to do that, so I would like to see where he will deal with this issue.

Regulation of freeholders has fallen behind that of landlords, leaving leaseholders stripped of the rights enjoyed even by tenants in the private rented sector. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us what measures exist that prevent the worst actors in the market from repeatedly ripping off leaseholders in one place after another.

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend is making a strong speech, and she accurately describes the mental and financial anguish that has been felt by many leaseholders in my constituency. She is absolutely right. In my constituency, this issue predominantly affects those in flats, not in leasehold houses, and what they have gone through with service charges and fire and building safety remediation has taken a toll on many of them. They have found themselves in despair. Does she agree that much more needs to be done to deal with managing agents on the transparency of service fees? It was good to hear the Secretary of State mention FirstPort, and I hope to meet it soon, but does she agree that this is a much wider problem that needs to be addressed?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. As I said before, and as I think the Secretary of State acknowledged, there is a lot of work to be done in Committee on these issues. Hopefully, we will be able to help the Secretary of State improve his own Bill, which needs significant improvements.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend will welcome the strengthening of the regulation of management companies in the Bill, but we need to go further. Just last Friday, I had some heartbreaking conversations with residents on the Froghall Fields estate in Flitwick—a lovely part of the world with which I am sure many Members will be familiar from the by-election—who have been left brutally exposed to successive failed management companies by ongoing adoption conversations with the council that are dragging on and on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more we can do to strengthen the proposed regulations in this area, to ensure that my long-suffering residents finally get the redress and resolution they deserve?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am so pleased about the work he has been doing since he was elected to this place and the way in which he has been a real champion of his constituents, which they did not feel they had previously. He makes a really important point, and he is right to point out the huge problem of estate agent charges and fees. The steps the Government are taking to address the issue are welcome, of course, but we absolutely believe there is room to improve the measures in the Bill. The shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), will look to do so in Committee.

[Mr Betts]

Following on from that point, when the Select Committee looked at this issue—it is a real problem—we said that whenever a property is sold, the purchaser or leaseholder, and in some cases the freeholder, should have a right at the beginning to see precisely what the agreement was between the local authority and the developer about where responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the estate and so forth rests. Many purchasers simply do not know who to go to and who is responsible. It would be helpful if that was set out very clearly at the beginning of the purchase.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fabulous work in this area. Transparency is incredibly important because it is the first step towards getting accountability.

We spoke before about pets—we all love our pets—and the Secretary of State has rightly protected the reasonable right of tenants to keep pets, yet it is not clear whether he intends to extend that right to leaseholders. I have seen leases that contain an outright ban, so I hope he ensures that the Bill reflects that. It is just one example of the restrictions that terms in leases increasingly impose, but I could cite many more—for example, basic modifications or decorations to flats, or the right to conduct business from home. I know that some Government Members may not be keen on working from home, but it is quite another thing to say that someone could lose their home over it. They might be more sympathetic if I point out the impact on the self-employed, who are often banned from running their own business from their own home.

There are basic principles at stake for the Opposition, and I hope the whole House can agree that people’s rights to bring up a family, to care for a loved family pet, to own and run their own business, and to pay a fair price and receive what they have paid for are basic British rights and values. The incredible thing is that they are being denied to people in their very own homes—homes that they own. That is surely at the heart of today’s debate, because for leaseholders, their flat or house is not an investment; it is their home—a place to live, to grow up, to grow old, to raise a family, to get on in life and to be part of a community. A home is more than bricks and mortar; it is about security and having power over your own life.

As a leaseholder, someone may have ownership but not control. The dream of home ownership has already slipped away from far too many, but it is less of a dream and more of a nightmare for too many who now achieve it. From what the Secretary of State has said, there is some agreement between us on the problems those people face, but the contents of the Bill do not quite match up to his sentiments or the energy that he brings to the Dispatch Box. So I hope that in winding up, the Minister will not just tell us exactly how far the Bill addresses the problems raised today but accept that we can work together in later stages to go further.

[Rachael Maskell]

This is a point that I wanted to make to the Secretary of State as well. There is a long-standing injustice for leaseholders who experience flooding as they currently do not have access to the Flood Re scheme. Will my right hon. Friend seek—I hope she will—to ensure a level playing field for leaseholders and freeholders in accessing the Flood Re scheme?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Just as the Secretary of State earlier brought enthusiasm to the Dispatch Box on cladding and some issues we faced there, I hope that, in Committee, we can explore that and the effect on people who have been affected more and more by flooding.

The Secretary of State may not have the support of his Prime Minister, or his Back Benchers—[Interruption.] Many of them are not here at the moment—watch this space!

On the Labour Benches, we are united behind the decisive action that leaseholders need. If the Government cannot deliver it, we are ready to do so. A Labour Government will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties as part of our commitment to fundamentally and comprehensively reform the leasehold system. We will also enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage in full.

The fact is, unless and until leaseholders of houses and flats get a renewed commitment from Ministers on all the Law Commission’s recommendations, leaseholders will reasonably conclude that the Government have scaled down their ambition with the scaled-back Bill before us. Leaseholders deserve to know the real reason why they are being fobbed off with such limited steps. Unfortunately, the answer, as ever, lies in the chaos of this Government. The Secretary of State has talked a good game, but he might be the only functional cog in a dysfunctional Government—there is a compliment in there; I am trying. [Laughter.] I hope that he will face down his Prime Minister and his own Back Benchers and accept Labour’s proposals to make the Bill meet the challenges of the moment. But if he does not, a Labour Government will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

In the festive spirit, I extend my sympathies to the Secretary of State, who seems to spend his time haunted by the ghost of Christmas past. In 2019, a Tory Prime Minister promised to ban no-fault evictions. Since then, households have been put at risk of homelessness because of a section 21 notice nearly 78,000 times. In 2017, the fifth predecessor of the Secretary of State pledged action to end the medieval practice of leasehold, but just last year another 207,000 homeowners became stuck in that expensive nightmare. All the while, the Secretary of State has been beavering away drawing up what can only be described as Alice in Wonderland legislation: a Bill to ban no-fault evictions that will not ban no-fault evictions, and a Bill to ban leasehold that will not ban leasehold. Is he too scared to stand up to his Back Benchers, or has he truly fallen down the rabbit hole?

[Jacob Young]

I should remind the right hon. Lady that I am not the Secretary of State. Let me also remind her that the Renters (Reform) Bill is the biggest change to the private rented sector in 30 years—longer than I have been alive. We have to ensure that we get this right both for tenants and for the 2.4 million landlords in this country. She may be willing to brush aside the concerns of landlords and turn her back on what are often small businesses. We are not. We will deliver a Bill that protects renters and ensures a fair system for landlords.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Following the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), let me say this:

“When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 592.]

Those are the words of the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on Monday. He also said that

“this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions.”

He was absolutely right about the importance of tone in today’s debate, as we discuss the 7 October attack and events in the middle east. What we say and how we behave in this Chamber really matters, because it echoes out across the country. It goes without saying that the disgusting rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the attack on 7 October only makes that point more profound.

I fear that the Prime Minister’s powerful statement at the Dispatch Box earlier this week has been undermined by how he and his Ministers have brought this Bill before us today, at the last minute and with the least possible notice. The tension and disagreement surrounding the issues are well known to the Secretary of State yet, in the middle of a humanitarian emergency in the middle east, he has chosen this week of all weeks to force this legislation on to the parliamentary timetable—a Bill that fails the Prime Minister’s own test of avoiding simplistic solutions.

There can be no doubt that Labour is opposed to a policy of adopting boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, as it wrongly singles out one individual nation and is counterproductive to the prospect of peace. We know this is a serious issue.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady says with some force at the Dispatch Box that Labour is clearly opposed to singling out Israel through BDS measures, yet where Labour is in government in the UK—Wales—the Welsh Labour Government sought to bring forward a procurement note that singled out Israel and the Palestinian territories. Can she explain what her position was when her colleagues in Wales sought to do that?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. We are hoping to get consensus around what we are trying to do. I stand by my statement, but we do not want one nation to be singled out in this boycott. We do not agree with boycott tactics, which is why we were concerned enough to table our amendment to the Procurement Bill back in February, when I shadowed the Cabinet Office, which would have prevented councils from singling out Israel or any other country. The Government have consistently opposed that amendment.

Today, we are presented with a Bill that will not address the problem it rightly seeks to solve. As it stands, the Bill has needlessly broad and sweeping draconian powers and far-reaching effects. It is poorly drafted legislation that risks creating fresh legal disputes, and will only serve as new flashpoints for community tension. We remain far from convinced that protracted legal battles over the BDS would serve or protect Jewish communities in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) clearly spelled out those issues on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) in Committee. Today is the fourth time that we have presented the Government with a chance to change course and choose a more constructive way forward, yet the Bill has been brought back nearly totally unamended—the only change is to the explanatory notes. It is all too clear that the Secretary of State has not listened.

However, there is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. There is a difference between applying consistent ethical principles in legitimate criticism of foreign Governments and what, in recent years, some individuals and organisations have tried to do: seek to target Israel alone; hold it to different standards from other countries; question its right to exist; and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people and in doing so, create hate and hostility against Jewish people here in the UK. That is completely wrong.

Amendment 13, on which we will seek a vote today, addresses that problem. It would allow public bodies to produce a document setting out their policy on procurement and human rights. The policy would be cemented in a framework, based on principles that apply equally to all countries, rather than singling out individual nations. Such a statement of ethical policy would ensure consistency in how public bodies decide on these matters, and would be subject to guidance issued by elected Ministers and laid before this House. Any inconsistent application would be prohibited. Under Labour’s proposals, if a public body were to act only against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—and failed to comply a consistent approach to human rights everywhere, such actions would be unlawful. We were disappointed that the Government chose not to support our amendment at previous stages, but I repeat today our offer to the Government—indeed, the whole House—to work together and speak with one voice on this most serious of issues, by accepting the amendment.

Moving on, there are four more concerning areas in the Bill that I wish to raise briefly with the Secretary of State. First, we have serious reservations about how the Bill effectively rewrites UK foreign policy by explicitly equating Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. That is an unprecedented step that, to my knowledge, has never been taken in British statute and is unique in British legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a former local authority leader in Trafford. I am incredibly proud that, when I was the leader of Trafford Council, my Labour administration took steps to cease procurement linked to the Xinjiang region because of the oppression and suppression of Uyghur Muslims. Am I correct to interpret the Bill as seeming to suggest that my Labour administration and I were incorrect to do that, and that others up and down the country who speak up for human rights and against that sort behaviour are in the wrong?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is why we are trying to gain consensus across the House through our amendments. It is important that people should be able to raise concerns appropriately and in the best way. The Bill does not allow that. Even the Foreign Secretary’s office warned No. 10 about the impact of the Bill on our foreign commitments. For that reason, we welcome amendment 7 in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which has support across the House—including from Members from the Liberal Democrat and SNP Benches. We think it will go some way to addressing the problem.

Thirdly, I want to re-emphasise the concerns raised by Members from all major parties about clause 4—the so-called gagging clause. I acknowledge the changes made to the explanatory notes in this area, but this unprecedented restriction could have far-reaching consequences for our democracy, and I urge the Secretary of State to think again. I have tabled amendment 16, which would address the issue of elected bodies. It is a mark of the concern across the House that there are so many amendments to the clause, including from Members from the Government and the SNP Benches. The seriousness of the clause must not be underestimated. It is an unprecedented restriction on the ability of the public bodies—many of them directly elected—to express a view on policy, effectively gagging them from even talking about it.

We are concerned that clause 4 would be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which protects freedom of expression. Labour’s amendment 14 seeks to remove the most sweeping provisions in the Bill through which the Secretary of State intends to hand himself unprecedented power to change the scope and application of the Bill through regulations.

Lastly, it is important to note that the Bill in its current form will not set out what it seeks to achieve. There are loopholes that will allow discriminatory acts to continue unchallenged. Our new clause 3 presents just one example, and I am sure that there are many more. The new clause requires the Government to review the impact of the Bill on discrimination, and addresses one form of it that has been raised with me—refusal to provide kosher food. We on the Labour Benches know that that impacts on many British Jews across this country, causing much distress and suffering. That is the type of concerning practice that should be tackled, but the Bill in its current form will not address it. I urge the Secretary of State to take a pause, take a step back, and consider that there might be another way through.

I assure the Secretary of State that Labour feels strongly that BDS practices against Israel offer no meaningful route to peace for the people of either Palestine or of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said on Second Reading,

“We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 527.]

But let us be clear: the effect of BDS would be the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, and there are those who use the campaign to whip up hostility towards Jewish people, providing no route to peace and a two-state solution. I can assure the Secretary of State that Labour will continue to condemn and oppose that in the strongest terms. I do not believe there is genuine disagreement between us on that point.

But let me be totally clear, too, both as a shadow Minister and as deputy leader of the Labour party: now more than ever we expect councils to bring all their communities together and represent all their citizens. It would be utterly wrong to choose one community over another—or worse, pit one against another.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I agree 100% with the right hon. Lady that we must be moderate in our tone and the language we use. Does she agree it was therefore very unhelpful for the Scottish Labour leader to use terms accusing Israel of breaching international law when we are discussing such a sensitive subject?

[Angela Rayner]

As I said at the start of the debate, people have to be responsible—and, in fairness, I acknowledged that the Prime Minister at the start of this week also outlined that people have to be responsible. I say that across the whole House and genuinely mean it: we all have to be responsible. I know people feel very strongly at the moment about these issues, and rightly so, and I hope the hon. Gentleman sees from my contribution to this debate that I am taking that very seriously as well.

We rightly expect that our local government must surely stay by the principles I mentioned, but we must also make sure that our national Government do too. That is real leadership—of our communities, and of our whole country. Instead, I fear we have a Government unwilling to recognise what is needed from them at this moment on this Bill: careful, precise deliberation and to bring communities and the country with us.

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has taken the reckless path of forcing the Bill back to Parliament today—a Bill that fails on its own terms. His approach risks dividing our country, our communities and even his party. I urge him now not to divide the House and to accept the amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side and his own.

For our part, Labour stands ready—as we have at every single stage of the Bill—to work constructively with the Government and other parties to build consensus behind a workable, sensible solution. There is no doubt that the people of our country want us to speak with one voice. Labour stands ready and willing to work in good faith to achieve that goal. The question is, are the Government?

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was absolutely right earlier this week to say that the tone we adopt is incredibly important given the gravity of the events we are seeing in the middle east at the moment. Every single Member of this House is obviously absolutely horrified by the tragedy that is unfolding and the barbaric atrocities committed by Hamas. In my case, I absolutely support the right of Israel to self-defence, but it is possible to believe all these things—to be a friend of Israel, too—but nevertheless to be reluctant to pass bad legislation through this House unamended when we have the opportunity to make amendments on Report. It is possible, too, to believe strongly that freedom of contract and freedom of speech are important pillars in our liberal democracy, and that although we might sometimes fetter those key pillars of freedom and our liberal democracy, we should not do so lightly.

For that reason, I would support amendments 7 and 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), because putting the occupied territories and Israel into the Bill is unusual for a Bill of this sort. We must ask this question: if the purpose is to make it difficult for a future Government to take a position that would change the approach to our close allies, why is the United States not also listed? Many of the groups that people object to, such as BDS, are often quite anti-American as well, so why do we not have a fuller list of countries to make it difficult for them to add?

More importantly, this sends an unfortunate signal around British foreign policy. It has been the long-standing position of all British Governments that we support a two-state solution and that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. That is a consistent British Government position over a long period of time, and we must be careful not to send signals that that has changed.

More importantly, I would also support amendment 3, because clause 4 is a strong violation of freedom of speech. It has come to something when we are saying that not only would people not be free to follow the procurement policy they want, but they would not even be allowed to say that the reason why they were not free to do so was this Bill. I will support amendments 7 or 3 if either go to a vote this evening.

However, I want to focus principally on the two amendments in my name—amendments 10 and 11. Although much of the debate around the Bill is understandably conducted through the context of BDS and of Israel and the Palestinian situation, the scope of clause 1 is very broad. What is before us this evening is a broad procurement Bill that places quite broad restrictions on procurements and applies to every country in the world. I presume the reason is that the Government’s legal advice was that to have something that focused just on one country, Israel, or on just one campaign group, BDS, would create some legal issues. So they then had to construct a Bill that affects every organisation, every issue and every country, and then through the schedule try to piece back some of the liberties affected by the imposition of clause 1.

I want to focus on that schedule, because it lists lots of different issues that are outside the scope of clause 1, and rightly so, including “environmental misconduct”, but there is no mention of animal welfare. There will be times when public bodies will take a procurement decision based on animal welfare. They need to be free to do that, and it is not at all clear from the schedule that that could be done. Paragraph 10 mentions “environmental misconduct” and at the end talks about

“the life and health of plants and animals”,

but it does so very much in the context of the environment and the wild environment rather than through the context of kept animals.



The Government buying standards were recently revised to encourage all public bodies and all Government Departments to take account of animal welfare in their procurement policies, but the Bill would appear to curtail the right of local authorities to do just that. Legitimate issues will come into play here. These are probing amendments on which I am looking for reassurance from the Minister and an undertaking to consider these matters further in the other place. For instance, were a local authority to judge that it would prefer to procure lamb from New Zealand over, say, Australia, because New Zealand has high animal welfare standards while the Australian sheep industry has poor levels of animal welfare and does not have in place the right regulatory powers to deal with certain practices, that would be a legitimate consideration. Indeed, it is not only legitimate but a consideration that the Government’s own buying standards and the Crown Commercial Service encourage all public bodies to pursue.

In closing, my question, which is very much linked to my two amendments, is this: is the Minister’s understanding that it would be entirely in order under the Bill for any local authority or public body to make decisions based on animal welfare, and that any such decision related to animal welfare would be totally outside the scope of clause 1?

Renters (Reform) Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I start by saying that we on these Benches will not oppose the Bill today—that may be more than can be said for some on the Benches behind the Secretary of State. After nearly five years of foot dragging, it appears that they need to be appeased with yet more delays. We disagree. Renters are at the sharp edge of the current housing crisis and urgently need the protections and support in the Bill—protections that, unfortunately, are just too late for many renters struggling right now in this cost of living crisis. But as they say, better late than never.

I welcome the Bill. In fact, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. We have been calling for such measures for some years. We will be pleased to finally see the abolition of section 21, whenever that actually comes. Labour also welcome the simplification of tenancies, which will give renters more flexibility and rights. It is right that periodic tenancies should become the norm, meaning that renters can give two months’ notice and get out of a tenancy at any point.

We further welcome the creation of a new ombudsman; that has the potential to be an essential part of the redress system. For too long, renters have lacked basic power and control over one of the fundamentals of life: their home. Tenants have struggled to challenge unfair treatment without undergoing lengthy and expensive court proceedings. If this ombudsman is given the proper teeth and resources, they will have an important role to play in levelling the playing field. I think the Secretary of State agrees.

We are pleased that the Tory rebrand of Labour’s proposed landlords register has made it into the Bill, too. The register is good for landlords and tenants. Finally, it is good to see the Government build in provisions to make it easier for renters to have pets. As I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, pets are an important part of the family, just as long as we remember not to let them off the lead illegally.

After four and a half years of foot-dragging, there can be no more dither and delay in ending no-fault evictions. The Secretary of State made strong points in his opening remarks, but I am afraid that he did not see the faces behind him—I can see why he has spent years arguing with the landlords on his Back Benches. Tenants across the country have been wrongfully evicted, kicked out of their homes and made homeless. In fact, since his Government first announced the end of no-fault evictions back in April 2019, a total of 71,310 households have been kicked out on to the street. That is more than 70,000 families put at risk of homelessness since this Government first proposed to protect them. Every single day another person suffers the same fate. According to Shelter, private renters over the age of 55 are served a section 21 eviction notice every 16 minutes. It has taken the Government four and a half years to reach the Second Reading of the Bill.

[Mr Perkins]

The Secretary of State was at pains to stress that the majority of landlords are good ones. It is almost like saying that there has been a delay to murder legislation because most people do not kill people. The reality is that we need legislation because there are some bad landlords, and the imbalance between renters and landlords is huge. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is welcome that we have finally got to Second Reading, many people have been let down by how long it has taken? It is now the responsibility of us all to get the legislation moving as quickly as we can.

[Angela Rayner]

I agree. I hope I can bring the House together when I say that it is right that we get moving on this issue. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will move on it, but I am concerned about potential delays. I will come to those points in more detail.

[Jim Shannon]

There may well be consensus in the House—I hope there is; we will see how it goes later on. A major issue that comes to my attention and that of many others is mould, condensation and damp in houses, about which tenants tell me regularly. Does the right hon. Lady feel that the Bill can satisfactorily address that to ensure the health and safety of tenants and their families?

[Angela Rayner]

We need legislation for decent homes alongside these provisions. I hope that we can get into that, and how we can protect people, in Committee. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, at the moment many families face a situation of inadequate housing, which goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I think we all agree that that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

[Caroline Lucas]

On decent home standards, would the right hon. Lady support the integration of Awaab’s law into the Bill? We are talking about delays, but my concern is that if those provisions do not make it into the Bill right now, our constituents, including some of mine in Brighton, will still be living in absolutely atrocious accommodation, with water streaming down their walls, mould and kids getting ill.

[Angela Rayner]

If we can address that in the Bill, we should push for it, but we should also push to ensure that, whether in social housing or private rentals, people should have confidence that their homes are safe. Homes should be a safe place, but at the moment, that is not the case for too many.

Huge swathes of renters have been left paying a heavy price for the Government’s inaction on section 21. This is real for people such as the Brady family, who live in Wiltshire and have experienced two no-fault evictions in the past two years. Mr Brady is a gardener and Mrs Brady works full time. After being forced out of their home, where they had lived for 15 years, they have resorted to living in their van. The family are able to bid on council houses when they become available, but so far, everything has been at least an hour away from where they live. Mr Brady said:

“There is a housing crisis and there are reasons behind it—you can use whatever excuses you want but it is a political decision. It was a political decision not to build enough houses, it was a political decision to sell off the social housing stock.”

Those are not my words but the words of a man who would still have a roof over his head if the Government had not dragged their feet.

I feel that more delay is inevitable. Conservative Members threatened in the newspapers this weekend to choose their self-interest over the national interest by opposing or delaying the Bill. They do not want to see these changes enacted. Then, on Friday evening, the Department snuck out the suggestion that section 21 changes are dependent on court improvements, which could take years to complete. Today we discovered—not from an announcement to the press, to Parliament or to the public, but from a leak—that that is indeed the core part of a grubby private deal that the Secretary of State has struck behind closed doors with his own Back Benchers. So the Government who broke our justice system are now using their own failure as an excuse to break their own promises.

Just how long will it take? Can the Secretary of State promise that the Government will meet the pledge they made at the last general election, which he mentioned, before the next general election? Renters simply cannot afford any more excuses or delays; he must provide clarity on that. [Interruption.] I know that he is a confident Secretary of State—he says so from a sedentary position—and I have confidence in his abilities, but people who are facing section 21 notices cannot afford any more dither and delay. He will get support from those on the Labour Benches in enacting this legislation to protect families who need protection.

We think that the Bill is a good starting point. We fear that a number of loopholes have been left in it, however. One such loophole is the commencement clause, which leaves Ministers the power to decide when—or, perhaps, whether—to actually bring an end to section 21. But that is not the only loophole. I hope that the Minister will engage with us constructively in Committee to close all those loopholes and strengthen the Bill in a range of areas.

For example, the new grounds for and protections from evictions are a welcome step, but the details on those grounds remain vague. On evictions, there remains a loophole by which renters are protected only for the first six months of their tenancy if their landlord decides to sell the property or move back in. That time limit needs to be increased as part of the Bill to give renters proper protection.

On section 21, it is not just a question of when the law is implemented but of how. Every household threatened with homelessness by a section 21 notice has the right to assistance from their local council to prevent them from becoming homeless, but the Bill removes that right to immediate help. That loophole could lead to a huge spike in homelessness and must be closed.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am grateful to her for highlighting that point; I have come across such cases, and it is an absolutely appalling situation. Often young families are thrust out of their homes with very little notice, and local authorities struggle to cope. At the moment, many such cases that I have come across involve people being moved to B&Bs out of the area.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that concern. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he acknowledged the challenges in his remarks—not just the housing challenges but all the challenges faced by families. People are scared and live insecure lives because of the devastation and ripple effect of the challenges they face.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the human cost of those evictions, but there is also a financial cost to councils. Bristol City Council pays exorbitant amounts to put people into emergency and temporary accommodation, which it should not have to do, so does she agree that, on top of helping people by ensuring that they do not have to go through the pain of eviction, the Government have a financial interest in resolving the issue?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. I also think that, as the Secretary of State mentioned, most private landlords want to do the right thing and are a good part of our housing mix. They should therefore welcome the fact that we are doing our best to ensure that their good name is upheld and that they are not stained by the tiny minority who do not do the right thing, who are the reason why these protections are so overdue.

We are also concerned that the changes to antisocial behaviour grounds are, as they stand, ambiguous and open to abuse. Mental health needs and domestic abuse are sometimes reported as antisocial behaviour, so that definition must be made more pragmatic and focused on genuine antisocial behaviour. The Secretary of State made reference to this issue, and I heard what he said; I look forward to working with him in Committee to address it, because it is important.

The Bill is also silent on the issue of economic evictions. While it strengthens the law to ensure landlords can only increase rents once a year, which is welcome, the mechanism for tenants to contest excessive rent hikes is not strong enough, giving people little real protection against so-called economic evictions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is there not a particular problem with the evidence that the rent tribunals will look at? The proposal is that they will look at the average market rents, but the local housing allowance is set at only 30% of the local average, meaning that rents could increase above the LHA and no one would be able to complain about it.

[Angela Rayner]

It is absolutely right that we get into these challenges, because I do not think people feel that the current situation provides redress for the challenges they face. I hope that in Committee, the Secretary of State will listen to points made by Members across the House to ensure that people get the redress and support that they need, and that we strengthen tenants’ rights in this area.

[Mr Betts]

The Bill does not really deal with the issue of affordability at all. One of the big issues is the freezing of the local housing allowance: some 90% of properties in the private rented sector are not affordable with the amount of LHA that is payable. The Select Committee recommended that we go back to the 30% figure, as was previously the case, so could we push for that to happen? Currently, many people simply cannot afford anything at all in the private rented sector.

[Angela Rayner]

We have to get into that issue, but we also have to deal with the root cause, which is that we do not have enough adequate social housing in this country. We do not have enough housing, and that is because of 13 years of the Tories’ failure to build the housing that we need and to challenge Members on their Back Benches. The Prime Minister has failed to challenge those on his Back Benches who have delayed house building in this country when we need it so desperately.

The Secretary of State mentioned the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and the White Paper, but I am disappointed that many of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper have since been dropped. The Secretary of State said that he is open-minded, and I am glad about that, because the Bill is silent on proposals to make blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits illegal. That sort of unacceptable practice must be stamped out, and I hope he will work with us to make sure the Bill does so. In the White Paper, the Government also promised to introduce the decent homes standard to give renters safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. That standard is missing from the Bill, but I did hear what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. I gently say to him that we cannot miss an opportunity to give private renters the protection—the long-term security and better rights and conditions—that they deserve.

[Wera Hobhouse]

To ensure that tenants have that safety, does the right hon. Lady agree that we need a new regulator for all private rentals with the power to subject landlords to regular inspections?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill talks about the ombudsman. We need to make sure that landlords understand their obligations, and where they do not, we need to ensure that there is redress. As I mentioned earlier, that ombudsman must have real teeth, and I hope the Secretary of State understands that. While I respect the landlords who are in the Chamber and those who are listening to this debate—I know many of them do a good job and are trying their best—we have to have a minimum standard. We cannot have circumstances, as we have seen in Greater Manchester, where children are living in very poor conditions. It is really important that we have regulation and, where people are in accommodation that falls below those standards, we have redress.

After four years, the clock is ticking. There can be no more delay, but the Government’s track record does not instil much confidence. On the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own home, and over 1 million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists. Those problems are only going to get worse because the Prime Minister could not stand up to his Back Benchers on house building targets. Now it appears that once again, he is caving in to them, rather than keeping his promises to the British people.

This Bill is an important step forward, supporting renters at the sharp edge of the cost of living crisis, so Labour will work constructively throughout its passage. We will not be the cause of delay—I hope the Secretary of State can say the same about his Back Benchers. If they cannot act in the national interest and support a renters’ reform Bill worthy of its name, let me make clear that our offer is to do so instead, because over the course of our proceedings today, 33 renters will have been put at risk of homelessness because they were issued with a section 21 notice and 11 will have got a visit from the bailiffs evicting them. Every single one of those people will be faced with anxiety about the future—anxiety about having to pay eye-watering moving costs and about whether they will be made completely homeless. They cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to find a backbone and stand up to his party. They cannot afford to wait for the Secretary of State to buy off his Back Benchers, and they cannot afford to wait yet more years for this Government to keep the promises they made to them.

We stand ready to work in the national interest, and will do so with anyone else who is prepared to join us. I urge the House not to waste this chance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to catch my eye. We have a long time—we have three hours ahead—but I want to be fair in the way that that is divided up, so we will begin with a time limit of seven minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman for our first questions. I hope he enjoyed his party conference, cancelling a meat tax that nobody had planned, abolishing seven bins that do not exist and announcing that they would build a series of transport links that already do exist—not so much conference season as panto season. I shall keep my question to a problem that definitely does exist. One million families are waiting for social housing. How can he justify handing back to the Treasury billions of pounds that are desperately needed to tackle the housing crisis?

[Michael Gove]

It is because we spend our money effectively. The affordable homes programme—the £11.5 billion investment that we are making—will lead, and has led, to investment in social and affordable housing across the country. The right hon. Lady has a challenge when it comes to credibility on social housing. She secured the deputy leadership of her party by saying that the Labour party should be building 100,000 social homes every year, and yet its current target is zero. Why did she retreat?

[Angela Rayner]

The right hon. Gentleman just comes out with flannel—I think he is auditioning for panto season this afternoon. He can dress it up however he likes, but the truth is that he could not spend this vital funding quickly enough in the middle of a housing crisis. It is clear that the Prime Minister shares his disregard for struggling families. In his hour-long speech in Manchester, the Prime Minister did not mention housing a single time—not once—but the Housing Minister did tell conference that renters are not all weed-smoking gangsters, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows all about, as he mentioned gangsters earlier today. Can the Secretary of State assure us that, despite the tone of those remarks, the Renters (Reform) Bill will not be scrapped before the King’s Speech?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, we are bringing reform to the rental market, but I note that at her own party conference the right hon. Lady shared with the public not just her policies but her recipe for a cocktail called Venom, which apparently contains a bottle of vodka, a bottle of Southern Comfort, 10 Blue WKDs and a litre of orange juice. We know what the real lethal cocktail from the Labour party is: a mix of unfunded spending commitments, massive borrowing, greenbelt development and hypocrisy on housing.

Birmingham City Council

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement today. It has been a while since we faced each other: 804 days, to be exact. A lot has changed since then. We are on our third Prime Minister, our fourth Chancellor and, of course, our sixth different Minister for Housing. They have crashed the economy, families face the worst cost of living for a generation, and mortgage rates have increased nearly fivefold since our last meeting. But one thing has not changed: local government has been pushed to the brink. Birmingham is just the biggest, latest example.

This is a deeply worrying time for people in the city. The issues facing the council are difficult and complex, and administrations of all three major political parties have grappled with them in the years since they emerged. Since May, the new leadership in Birmingham have been working urgently on this issue and have been clear that they will take responsibility for tackling the problems facing their city, but they can only make that progress if the Secretary of State treats them as partners, and not as a political football.

I welcome the comments the Secretary of State has laid out today in regard to the action and support he will give Birmingham, but can he assure us that the commissioners will work with the city’s elected representatives and leadership to tackle these problems together? Is his Department considering a similar approach to other struggling councils? Will his officials be taking a deep dive into the areas he mentioned in his statement?

In Birmingham’s case, the Secretary of State mentioned the large equal pay settlement as the straw that broke the camel’s back, but he also told us that governance and service delivery concerns were raised by three independent sources: the local government and social ombudsman, the housing ombudsman and the Department for Education’s commissioner for special educational needs and disability. That came after Lord Kerslake’s review, which found that successive administrations had failed the city. Yet he provided no support until the section 114 notice. Why does it take that for the Government to take action on this scale?

Like the rest of the country, Birmingham is facing the shock of spiralling inflation and battling a cost of living crisis, but in the face of all of this, the Government stripped away its reserves. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that amounts to £1 billion taken from the pockets of local communities over the last decade? He surely cannot deny that Birmingham has experienced some of the most severe cuts of the last 13 years, and he must recall that it was this Prime Minister who boasted of changing the funding formulas to take money away from deprived urban areas. Now, faced with an eye-watering equal pay claim, with which the leadership are rightly dealing, Birmingham has been pushed over the edge.

As the Secretary of State admitted, this is by no means a single case. Local authorities across the country are struggling, and, after 13 years, he cannot seriously say that it is all their own fault. Perhaps he can confirm that only one council issued a section 114 notice before his party took office in 2010, and that since then eight councils have issued notices, with warnings that another 26 are at risk of bankruptcy over the next two years. Can he tell us why so many local authorities of all political stripes have already issued section 114 notices on his watch? This is not a one-off, so what work is his Department doing to support local authorities that are warning of financial distress now?

The truth is this crisis in local government has been caused by the Conservatives’ wrecking ball. With every swing, another local council is pushed to the brink and another local community falls over the edge. That is the difference between us. A Labour Government would oversee sustainable, long-term funding for councils, and we would work with local authorities and push power, wealth and opportunity out of Westminster. The Secretary of State finished his statement by talking about upholding the good name of local government. Surely we can all agree that central Government have real questions to answer. Will the Secretary of State finally grasp the nettle and take responsibility, or is his message to local councils today that this is just the start of more misery to come?

[Michael Gove]

It is a great pleasure to be reunited with the right hon. Lady; those 800 days apart seemed much longer. We have certain things in common—both of us have been trade union organisers in the past—but she has been much more successful in internal party elections than I have ever been, so I do have a lot to learn from her. Nevertheless, I must politely remind her that while in my statement I was, I hope, careful and scrupulous in making clear that responsibility goes back quite some time in Birmingham, and responsibility does need to be shared between elected members and officials, I did not mention anything specifically or explicitly party political, because I believe it is vital that we work together across parties and across political traditions to deal with this issue.

Given that the right hon. Lady did mention the party politics of this, I think it important for us to recognise that the intervention in Birmingham, and our interventions in Sandwell and Liverpool, have all been interventions in Labour-led local authorities in which comprehensive mismanagement extended back over years. It is simply not good enough to say that Birmingham has not received the support that it needed. Birmingham has a core spending power of £1,202.4 million. That is a 10.6% increase in the last year, and a 31.8% increase since 2015-16.

Labour local authorities have been supported with funding, and also supported with the help of West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a striking factor in the west midlands: why is it that Labour Sandwell and Birmingham are failing, while the Conservative leadership of Andy Street has seen the delivery of record investment and record house building? If people want to draw political lessons from what we have seen in Birmingham, the message is very clear: if you want effective and efficient local government, trust in Conservative leadership, particularly at a time when we need to recognise that a fundamental problem afflicting Birmingham’s finances is an equal-pay problem exacerbated by the actions of trade unions—trade unions which, in many cases, are funding Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party. It is vital that Labour politicians use their influence to ensure that we can work together to deal with the problems that that great city faces.

Council Tax

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but frankly, I am sad that we have reached this point. It is a stain on Britain’s democratic history that, if the Government have their way with these regulations, we will take a historic step away from making our democracy more open and accessible and towards closing it down, shutting people out and making it harder to vote.

Opposition Members have been clear from the start that this legislation is a wasted opportunity. It is a step backwards at a time when so many improvements are needed to widen participation in our democracy and to make it fit for the 21st century. The regulations arise from a slapdash, short-sighted and politically motivated act that turns the clock back on democratic progress. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his work throughout the stages of the Elections Act 2022, highlighting the dangers of mandatory photo ID, which we are debating today. I thank him for helping to secure this debate on the Floor of the House when Ministers would no doubt have preferred to sneak it through upstairs.

The basic fact is that voter ID is not only a backwards step for democracy, but completely pointless. It is a solution in search of a problem. Ministers claim it will combat voter fraud, but voter personation—the voter fraud which voter ID apparently targets—is vanishingly rare. Over the last 10 years, there have been about 243 million votes cast in elections, and how many people have been convicted of voter fraud? Four. That is 0.00000005%. I am under no illusion that the Government are in the slightest bit interested in genuinely tackling fraud. The Tories’ Minister responsible for fraud summarised it when he resigned at the Dispatch Box, saying that the Government had

“no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

While the Government focus on measures like these regulations, serious fraud, where criminals target vulnerable people with scams to steal bank details, is running rife under this Government. Our economy loses around £190 billion every year to fraud—more than the UK spends on health and defence combined. People are being left terrorised by scammers pretending to be their banks, mobile networks or family members, but instead of actually tackling that, the Government are using parliamentary time to tackle the virtually non-existent crime of voter personation, costing millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money to boot.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Will the right hon. Member explain why, if the system is so bad, it is used in Labour selections?

[Angela Rayner]

I have just explained why this is such a tiny, not even significant, minuscule issue that the Government are trying to make hay over, when, in fact, we have fraud that results in people being terrorised by scammers pretending to be their banks. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being wasted on this Bill instead of dealing with the fraud that the hon. Member’s constituents have to face every single day, which is not being tackled. He needs to tackle that.

Perhaps the Minister lives in a bizarre alternative reality where, across the country, people are attempting to impersonate their neighbours to steal their votes, but meanwhile, in this universe, you are more likely to be hit by lightning 54 times than fall victim to voter personation fraud. So let us get back to the reality that we face. The British public face a cost of living crisis, freezing temperatures, with people too scared to put their heating on, and cancelled Christmases, with working parents unable to afford festive treats. And this Conservative Government are planning to spend £180 million of taxpayers’ money to introduce a completely pointless and eye-wateringly expensive change.

[Aaron Bell]

We heard evidence from the police in the Bill Committee. They thought that the measures on voter ID and the extra measures that we are taking to avoid intimidation would make the Act really useful for them on polling day, so that they can get on with the job that we want them to do—that is, to keep our communities safe—and not have to spend as much time dealing with cases of personation at polling stations.

[Angela Rayner]

I say to the hon. Member: show us the evidence. Where is the evidence of that? We have not seen the evidence, but we do know that people are choosing between heating and eating this winter. We do know that crime is on the rise and that people just do not see the police on the beat any more. We do know that people are targeted by online fraud every single day of the week, with no protection and no action by their Government.

I ask the Minister: why will he not spend his time and energy tackling the huge array of issues that face the British people instead of flushing away yet more hard-earned taxpayers’ cash on this pointless measure? I might be able to hazard a guess. I notice that the regulations allow 60-plus, but not 18-plus, Oyster cards—why is that? I notice that OAP bus passes will be valid, yet students IDs will not—why is that? I notice that some 4.2 million voters do not have a photo ID allowed by these regulations, yet the Government demand that we plough on—why is that?

The Minister said that voter ID does not discriminate, but I am afraid that the evidence does not quite stack up. When the Minister’s colleague, a former Cabinet Office Minister—the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)—said that

“the evidence of our pilots shows that there is no impact on any particular demographic group from this policy.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 394.]—

the answer was based on the Electoral Commission’s evaluations of the 2018 and 2019 voter ID pilots. However, in its most recent report, the commission said that it had no way of measuring the effect of voter ID on minority communities. It said:

“Polling station staff were not asked to collect demographic data about the people who did not come back, owing to the practical challenges involved in carrying out that data collection exercise”.

Let us take a look into the pilots more closely. Pilots for voter ID took place in just 10 local authority areas in England. In all elections that took place in 2019, there was one conviction and one police caution for using someone else’s vote at a polling station, but during the pilots, 2,000 people were turned away because they did not come to the polling station with ID. More than 750 of those did not return with ID to cast their vote. How can the Minister stand there and tell us that these measures will not make it harder for people to vote? Perhaps they are less keen on having the Government chosen by the voters than having the voters chosen by the Government.

I come on to the Government’s so-called “free elector IDs”. Not only are they unworkable, they are hugely expensive for already overstretched local authorities. Council leaders have warned the Government that voter ID risks damaging access to democracy and must be delayed. They say that there is simply not enough time to deal with all the risks that will be created by the new system. I wonder what the Minister has to say to the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, James Jamieson, who said that voter ID must be delayed because:

“It is a fundamental part of the democratic process that elections can run smoothly and effectively where every citizen is able to exercise their right to vote.”

What does the Minister have to say to the leader of his party’s councillors?

The language and politics around voter ID used by this Government is frankly dangerous. Does the Minister not trust the voters of this country to continue to cast their ballots securely, as they have done for generations? Does he really believe that voting is not safe and secure in Britain? Ministers should be promoting confidence in our elections, not spreading baseless scare stories that threaten our democracy.

Finally, the Minister will be aware of an amendment tabled in the other place by my noble Friends on the Labour Front Bench to establish a Select Committee to conduct an assessment of the impact of the voter ID regulations on turnout in the local elections next May. If the Minister is so confident that the regulations will not create barriers to people voting, surely he cannot object to that pragmatic, common-sense proposal. Surely he has absolutely nothing to be afraid of.

I urge Members across the House, when they enter the voting Lobbies this evening, to think about our constituents who have the right to vote and may have done so for decades, but will be turned away for the first time in May. It is for that fundamental reason that these backward, unworkable and anti-democratic regulations must be stopped in their tracks.