Syria

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bob Blackman

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that could not be more important. When we talk about arrangements being inclusive, comprehensive and representative, that must include arrangements for the 51% of the population who are women. We must also see that girls, as well as women, are protected. When we looked at the previous humanitarian situation in Syria, we saw that there were huge issues for many women in accessing family planning and basic health services—those kinds of issues hit women particularly hard. The UK has been supporting the work of the United Nations on family planning, and we will continue to make sure that the UK is a strong advocate, both on a political level and on services for women and girls in Syria.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister might like to welcome the fact that the Israeli air force is systematically destroying chemical weapons, rather than relying on the word of terrorists. Will she comment on the largest occupation anywhere in the middle east, namely that of Turkey in Syria, and on the pro-western Kurdish fighters who are being singly dealt with by the Turks? It appears that the Turkish Parliament now sees an opportunity to annex more and more of Syria, creating a greater Turkish empire. Has the Minister or the Government had any discussions with Turkey about its intentions?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues. I briefly mentioned that the UK has been in contact with Türkiye and the Syrian Democratic Forces since the start of this escalation. As he will be aware, there is a US-brokered ceasefire, and it has to be held to. We have been very clear with all sides that they must refrain from activity that could lead to further loss of life or damage to civilian infrastructure in order to avoid further destabilisation and civilian suffering in the region, which has already been intense and which must not be worsened.

UK Leadership on Sudan

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bob Blackman

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

Yes, to use the words of my hon. Friend—who of course has considerable experience in the area of humanitarian emergencies—this is a foreign policy priority for the UK Government. That is demonstrated by the recent leadership of the Foreign Secretary at the Security Council. It will continue to be a foreign policy priority, as has been made very clear by the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, by the Prime Minister. We will continue to use every lever available to us to ensure that we are speaking up for the people of Sudan and doing all we can to secure an end to this dreadful conflict.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The current war in Ukraine and the battles between Israel and the terrorists from Lebanon and Gaza are regularly reported to this House, yet more civilians are being killed in Sudan than in all these other conflicts. This conflict has been largely ignored across this House and in our media, so I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement today and support it completely. Now, of course, an end to hostilities has to be secured, but equally, those responsible for human rights abuses need to be brought to justice at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. What action is the Minister going to take to make sure that happens?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. As we can see, there is considerable concern about this situation right across the House; we need to be working together on this emergency, and I have certainly found the Opposition to be keen to do so.

The hon. Member talks about the need to ensure there is not impunity for the atrocities that we are currently seeing. That is absolutely a priority of the UK Government. As I have mentioned, we were really determined to ensure the renewal of the fact-finding mission, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for having managed to secure the initial mission. There was some suggestion that it might be difficult to get it renewed, but we actually saw an increase in support for it—two African countries backed it, which was really encouraging. We are determined to work right across the board to ensure that there is no impunity, but above all, that the voices of people on the ground are heard. That also involves backing civil society, which again, the new Government are doing.

Israel: UNRWA Ban

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I most definitely share the deep concern at, and the rejection of, the truly appalling comments to which my hon. Friend has just referred. We are very clear that they were completely unacceptable; we could not have been clearer. Some in the Opposition have suggested that the sanctions regime should be in opposition to taking action on the legal regime on arms exportation, but the Government believe that we need to keep all these issues under review, as the House would expect us to in fulfilling our legal requirements. That is why we announced the changes to arms export licences a few months ago.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The run-up to the vote in the Knesset was that UNRWA confirmed last Thursday that its employee Muhammad Abu Attawi actually led the attack on Kibbutz Re’im, where British national Aner Shapira was brutally murdered—after throwing seven grenades back at those attacking him, he was killed by the eighth. Given those circumstances, what assessment have the Government made of UNRWA employees’ direct involvement in the 7 October attack? Until the individuals involved are rooted out, there will of course be mistrust in UNRWA delivering the aid we all want to see going in. Will the Minister take action on that issue?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Government have been very clear that UNRWA must meet the highest standards of neutrality, as was of course laid out in Catherine Colonna’s report. As I mentioned, the Government have provided financial support to the tune of £1 million to ensure that UNRWA is taking the necessary actions. I have discussed the issue in detail with Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini and other members of UNRWA’s leadership. I know that they are taking action on this issue, and rightly so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret the tone of the hon. Member’s question. Surely he can recognise that the new Government prioritise doing all that we can to secure the required ceasefire. The Government have repeatedly conveyed not just messages but action time and again to make sure we play our part, and that has been recognised internationally. The changes we have made around UNRWA, our commitment to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, ensuring we hold to our legal requirements around arms exports—that is a Government that are committed to international humanitarian law.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Intercepted communications demonstrate that Hamas are struggling to find room in their warehouses for the aid that is arriving. What action will the Minister take to ensure that UNRWA actually gets that aid to the people who need it—and we accept they need it desperately—when Hamas are preventing it from reaching the Palestinian population?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Government are clear that UNRWA plays a vital role in saving lives in Gaza, providing much needed food and basic services and supporting stability in the west bank and wider region. Wherever there are allegations or reports that there may have been unacceptable activity—such as that covered in the Colonna report—we have stated clearly to UNRWA that they must be investigated. It did do that with the Colonna report, and the UK Government have supported the implementation of the findings of that report. We continue to discuss that in detail with UNRWA so that it can operate in the manner that it is mandated to do by international law.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Bob Blackman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted the need to ban tenant fees, for which my party has called for for no fewer than five years—I have personally campaigned for the ban for four years. I support the Labour Front-Bench amendments, because the Bill does not go far enough. We need further specification of the fee regime to make it more user-friendly, and we need to increase penalties for those landlords and letting agencies that flout the new legislation.

Few places in the country are in more need of this legislation than Oxford. Only 39% of people in the city own their own home or have shared ownership—that is well below the national average. Nearly half—49%—rent privately, and that figure has risen by more than a fifth since 2001. Private renting is not just a stopgap in the city; it is the only option for huge numbers of people.

The cost of setting up and maintaining a tenancy in the private rented sector is a huge problem in the city. The sharpest end of that is seen with the exponential growth in rough sleeping in Oxford. On some nights in the 2000s, nobody would be recorded as sleeping on the street, but nowadays having 60 people rough sleeping is the new normal. That is relevant to this debate because the core reason why people in Oxford become homeless has changed. It used to be relationship or family breakdown, but that is no longer the case. The key reason for homelessness now is landlords ceasing tenancies, often because of non-payment of fees.

There are many excellent landlords and letting agents in Oxford, and I find some of the mischaracterisations of the Opposition’s approach in this area bizarre. We all know excellent landlords and letting agents in our constituencies, but a small number bring the rest of the sector down and pollute its reputation, because they do not act in a responsible manner. A significant proportion of my postbag is taken up with tenants who have been asked for unreasonable fees, as well as people who are simply unable even to rent. In fact, I have a meeting in a couple of days with someone who is trying to move into Oxford but cannot afford the different costs associated with getting into a tenancy, and that is even with the private rented sector deposit guarantee scheme operated by the local authority. People are not able to move into Oxford’s private rented sector anymore.

Labour’s amendments would ensure that the new regime that the Bill will rightly introduce would be sufficiently watertight. I welcome some of the changes that the Minister specified, but we need the fee regime to be upfront in the manner specified by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. We need a user-friendly regime that tenants can easily understand, and that is not presently the case under the Bill.

We also need to make sure that the fees are sufficient. Oxford has one of the strictest regulatory regimes for landlords, operated by the local authority. Many landlords support it because they see that it squeezes out the rogue operators, and that it has removed many of the most unsafe and unhealthy properties from the housing market in Oxford. The regime pays for itself, and it is important that the regime under the Bill pays for itself, too. That means that those fees have to be sufficient. We have already had a lot of discussion about the cuts that have been made to trading standards, but it might also be helpful to look at how those fees—the Minister asserted that they would be sufficiently deterrent—compare with some of the profits obtained by landlords in areas such as my own.

The average property rent in Oxford is currently £1,919 per calendar month, so £5,000 is very obviously less than three months’ rent—we can all do the maths. Now, I appreciate that not all that rent will be profit, because of course there are associated costs. However, estate agents encouraging people to come into the buy-to-let market in my city inform those people that they will have an average annual return on their investment of 18%. When we talk about whether a fee is deterrent and whether a £5,000 fine is sufficient, we should reflect on that figure.

Comments have been made about the role of central Government and local authorities. Yes, it is absolutely right, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said, that there are local authorities that do not fulfil their responsibilities. There are others that want to go further but have been able to do so only at the behest of central Government. Please can we get to a situation in which local authorities that want to have more stringent regimes do not have to wait to get the okay from central Government? We need more local control.

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the passionate view of her constituents. May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

In the absence of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I had the honour of chairing the Select Committee pre-inquiry into this legislation. We looked at a lot of the evidence that is now coming forward. I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit to make some changes during the passage of the Bill and to accept many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) raised the matter of how many weeks’ rent a deposit should be. It is a shame that she has not tabled an amendment to that issue on Report, because I think several Conservative Members would feel very sympathetic towards restoring what the Select Committee recommended, which was a compromise. There was an argument for four weeks and an argument for six weeks, and we took the view that five weeks was the appropriate compromise for two reasons. First, if the limit is four weeks’ rent, there is a risk that the tenant will just refuse to pay the last month’s rent at the end of a tenancy. Secondly, a deposit of six weeks’ rent would almost certainly become the norm for most landlords, and would therefore be inflationary on the amount of deposit that would be charged.

I gently remind the Minister that in the last Budget the Chancellor allocated some £20 million towards a national rental deposit scheme, following representations from me and several other colleagues to set one up. The Department has not yet set up that scheme, but by saying that the limit will now be six weeks, instead of four or five, the Minister is going to reduce straightaway the number of families that can be assisted under the national rental deposit scheme when the Department finally does bring it forward. I ask him to look at this figure again, because it will limit the number of people who could be assisted through this programme.

On the issue of enforcement, I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister. Many of the changes, which are very clear, go above and beyond those proposed by the Opposition. Having looked at the evidence in relation to this legislation, many of us will share concerns about the difference between what I would classify as true costs, and charges. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the key question is, who does the letting agent work for? The letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. It is the responsibility of the letting agent to acquire tenants on behalf of their employer—namely, the landlord—and therefore there should not be two charges incurred. The letting agent should charge the landlord for their fees, not charge the tenant for acquiring.

However, there are costs associated with acquiring a tenant—for example, when there is a requirement for a credit check. If a prospective tenant were to fail that test, there is a cost that someone has to collect. If an applicant makes a request through a letting agent and a credit check is then undertaken that is failed by the prospective tenant, it is reasonable that the cost should be passed on to that individual, particularly if they were going to knowingly fail the credit check in the first place. That is an example of a true cost as opposed to a fee charge. My hon. Friend has set out a set of areas and then a limit on the charges that a letting agent may charge a tenant. I trust that he will not press his amendment to a vote, because that goes completely against the spirit of this Bill and what we are proposing.