Oral Answers to Questions

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Again, the hon. Gentleman reminds us in the case of his constituents how widespread this challenge is. The leasehold reform Bill can play a significant part in ensuring that the position of those in the future can be safeguarded, but we need to take action even before that legislation comes forward, and I hope to update the House shortly on a series of measures that I hope will help bring some relief to his constituents and others.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I have a constituent in my constituency who has been severely affected by the lack of progress on building safety fund funding. He is an example of the complexity and the “invidious vice” that the Secretary of State mentions from the Dispatch Box. Will he agree to meet me to discuss the particular complexities of this situation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning incredibly assiduously behind the scenes on behalf of those who have been caught in this vice. It is the case that 700 or so disbursements have been made from the building safety fund so far, but we realise that we need to take a number of measures to address this situation. He is right that we need to do so with a sense of urgency, but we also need to ensure that those measures are appropriately co-ordinated to have the beneficial impact we would all like to see.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Of course, that is where we all should be aiming—a race to the top. That should be the principle that is being set by elected Members in the Parliaments that they are elected to represent, yet we find here a complete travesty of that.

Devolution has proved that the market can successfully operate across the UK with variations in standards. This Bill’s proposals work against the interests of our high-quality producers and our consumers. As the National Farmers Union of Scotland explained in its submission to the UK Government’s White Paper consultation, the proposals for the UK internal market, in the absence of effective common frameworks, could trigger a race to the bottom. In a Scottish context at the very least, they could force a choice between upholding high standards of production or maintaining the competitiveness of agricultural businesses.

The existing common frameworks were designed to manage cross-UK divergence where EU law and competences intersect. They do not need to be supplemented or undermined. Scottish Environment Link is clear that the UK Government’s plans could

“force Scotland to follow the lowest common denominator, especially where countries negotiating bilateral trade deals with the UK demand lower standards seriously undermining efforts to combat climate change and biodiversity decline.”

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I am interested in why the hon. Gentleman seems to assume that any standards legislated for in this Parliament would inherently always be lower, as he puts it. Why would that necessarily be the case?

[Drew Hendry]

Perhaps you should ask your hon. and right hon. Friends on your Back Benches who voted against your own Back Benchers’ amendments to protect—

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I rise to speak in support of amendment 88 and amendments 27, 34 to 36 and 39, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

I make no apologies for seeking throughout our proceedings to defend devolution and the principle that power devolved is power retained. This Bill represents the most substantial transfer of power from Holyrood to Westminster since the reconvening of Scotland’s Parliament in 1999, placing a straitjacket over Scotland’s desires to uphold high environmental standards and high food standards, as well as to protect our economy from being sold out by the Tories in a race to the bottom.

The Bill as currently drafted means overriding the devolution settlement in key areas such as food standards, environmental protection and building control. As a member of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, I am particularly concerned by the warnings of Peter Drummond from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, who said earlier this week that Scotland’s significantly higher building standards on cladding and fire prevention measures were threatened by the overarching desire of the Bill to achieve alignment on the basis of mutual recognition of standards.

Throughout this Bill, the principle of consent to legislate in areas normally devolved under the Sewel convention is notably absent. It is clear that throughout the passage of this Bill, the concerns of the devolved Governments, regardless of their political colours, have been totally ignored. Amendments 27, 34 to 36 and 39 should therefore present no problem for the UK Government if they want to continue to operate on the principle that they should seek a legislative consent motion for those aspects of the Bill that are devolved.

The power grab that the Bill creates on devolution will be cemented by virtue of the Bill’s inclusion within schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998, which means in practice that the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate in devolved areas will be constrained as a result of the passing of this Bill. Any legislation placed within that schedule to the 1998 Act is protected from modification by primary or secondary legislation, even if that legislation is within the Scottish Parliament’s existing devolved responsibilities. It should be noted that the same provision was used during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to place constraints on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to directly legislate in devolved areas of retained EU law.

The UK Government’s sudden interest in the use of schedule 4 to the 1998 Act in the past two years reveals their ultimate intention to use Brexit to re-reserve powers that are currently within devolved competence. Their power surge is proving true to its word—the Bill is fundamentally damaging everything that it comes into contact with.

In the drafting of part 2 and clauses 48 and 49, the UK Government’s inherent assumption is that any regulatory divergence would somehow undermine the functioning of cross-border trade and subsidies. There is no credible evidence to suggest that primary legislation is needed in those areas where there have historically been big differences between the legal framework and therefore the regulatory standards in Scotland and England.

Aileen McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at the University of Durham, hit the nail on the head when she highlighted:

“In all the fury re the UK Internal Market Bill’s impact on the NI Protocol, let’s not forget that it also radically recasts the devo settlements in a way that will, to a much greater extent than EU law, restrict the devolveds’ ability to effectively regulate their own territories”.

Amendment 88 would entirely remove the Bill’s status as a protected enactment under the Scotland Act 1998 when it reaches the statute book. That is a necessary step to stop the Westminster power grab and move the Bill back towards an approach based on agreed common frameworks for trade within the UK that also respects devolution and the desire of devolved Administrations to legislate in accordance with the wishes of their respective electorates.

A quote that is most often attributed to Donald Dewar is that devolution is

“a process, not an event”.

Any hon. Member who wants that process to continue in Scotland’s favour should oppose the sweeping and overreaching approach taken by this Bill, and that is what I intend to do today.

[Bim Afolami]

I rise in support of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

Hear, hear.

[Bim Afolami]

I am glad that the Minister is in favour of the Bill as well; that is good news.

In the modern world, trade matters just as much as—if not more than—it ever has. There has been much talk about trade, not just over the days in which we have considered the Bill, but over the past couple of years. I do not want to put us through the last couple of years again, but we spend a lot of time talking about tariffs. Although tariffs are important, the biggest obstacles in modern trade are often non-tariff barriers such as professional standards, standards for goods or different standards relating to services. The whole Bill seeks to address these aspects of trade, particularly through these clauses.

We need to consider not just trade between the United Kingdom and other countries, but trade within the United Kingdom. We all have businesses in our constituencies that trade. I was talking to a business in my constituency this summer about the places with which it is trading. I said, “Are you trading with China or the United States?” and the people from this business said, “With Aberdeen.” It is easy to forget that we need to ensure that our internal market—some people may prefer the term “internal single market”—is as seamless and as free as possible, and that is what this Bill does.

The Bill also ensures the principle of non-discrimination within the United Kingdom internal market. It allows businesses to expand within the UK as well as trading abroad, and helps businesses to access procurement from across the United Kingdom. For example, the Scottish Government may procure goods from a Welsh company, or Hertfordshire County Council may have a procurement contract with a Northern Irish business. Our trade within the United Kingdom is of paramount importance, and this House should not forget how much trade happens within our nation.

It is important to address some of the criticism of the Bill. I have been listening to the debate over the last couple of weeks, and, frankly, I find it rather odd hearing SNP Members criticise the Bill on the basis that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly would not be able to have their own say vis-à-vis certain standards. On some level, one could argue that that is an argument for independence. Obviously that is the SNP’s stated position and they are entitled to have it, but contained in the same breath SNP Members are saying, “But we want the European Union to impose common standards.” We are talking about a European Union that, even under the most generous terms of electoral governance it may devise, would give the Scottish people, the Welsh people or the Northern Irish people—

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bim Afolami]

In a second. I would like to make a bit of progress.

The European Union would not give its voters a direct say in the making of such common standards as Members would have in this House. Yet SNP Members would prefer the European Union, which has more than 450 million people in 27 member states, to impose common standards, rather than the United Kingdom Parliament, where SNP Members quite rightly speak for their constituents in this House. I find that a bizarre position.

I do not believe the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is in her place, but earlier she became very exercised—she mentioned it several times—about the idea, the horror, of English teachers being able to teach in Scottish schools. This is not a place to talk about the SNP’s record on education, but it is odd if we cannot have an amity between the four nations and would regard an English teacher as somehow not qualified to teach in Scotland. Do we not want fully qualified English teachers to be able to go to a Scottish school and to say that they want to teach in Scotland? The Bill allows the sort of non-discrimination that that would outlaw.

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Gentleman is mischaracterising the attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) to point out that qualification standards in Scotland are higher than those required in English schools. I can tell him right now that free schools, which are so popular with his Government, are allowed to employ teachers without qualified-teacher status. That is not the case in Scotland. What is his answer to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

I was afraid that the hon. Lady would not understand my point fully. Let me make it for her again: the idea that standards for teachers in Scotland are somehow higher than those in England is not correct. The fact is that across all our nations there are certain small differences in the professional qualifications of different people in different professions. This argument—almost—that we are having illustrates the fundamental point, which is that we should have a principle of non-discrimination for goods, services, teachers and all professions across this United Kingdom.

I am having some fun, so let me take on another point in respect of amendment 89. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) made this point very well, and I am sad that he is not in his place because I do like to praise him—he is a very intelligent, smart fellow. The amendment would in effect allow a devolved Assembly or Government from one part of the United Kingdom to impose regulations on the people of Scotland. If I was a member of the SNP and believed that the people of Scotland’s interests were paramount, I would think that quite odd. Again, it illustrates the illogicality of the SNP position.

Fundamentally, SNP Members care about one thing: they do not care about free trade across the United Kingdom or prosperity for businesses; they just care about breaking up the United Kingdom. The reason why the Scottish nationalists dislike this Bill so much—I have been wondering what is driving their animus toward the Bill—is that they know it can help to bind the United Kingdom together. That is why they hate it, that is why I support it and that is why the Minister and the Government are putting it forward.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if SNP Members actually wanted to break up the Union and the Bill was as terrible as they claim, they would vote with us to put through such a terrible Bill? The fact that they oppose the Bill shows that it is a good Bill that will bind us together, showing once again the illogicality of their arguments.

[Bim Afolami]

As always, I agree with my hon. Friend.

The Bill has been put forward and we are in the position we are in. The Prime Minister made his statement earlier today and will make a statement to the country this evening. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and we all know that.

We also know that the economic consequences of that pandemic are only starting to show. We must do everything we can, regardless of party politics, regardless of where we sit on various issues on the constitution or anything else, to help jobs. It is about jobs, jobs, jobs—people’s livelihoods. This Bill can underpin and help strengthen that aim.

Sixty per cent of Scottish exports—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—go to the rest of the United Kingdom, and yet the SNP says that it wants more, not fewer, barriers to that trade. The biggest long-term challenge of this Parliament, after the terrible health consequences of the pandemic, is, I believe, the economic damage that ensues. The Bill helps not just the United Kingdom come together, but any United Kingdom Government support businesses, jobs, people and communities across these nations—that is something to be commended, strengthened, and supported—alongside increasing by more than 100 the powers going to devolved Assemblies and Governments. I believe that that will strengthen the Union, strengthen our internal single market, and strengthen the economy of this country.

Criminal Law

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I support the statutory instrument, and in doing so I support not just the Minister, but the strength of the voices in favour of it on the Conservative Benches.

This statutory instrument is really about three things. It is about delivering on our promises, it is about public safety, and it is about community cohesion. I want to focus on the third.

We talk about crime in two ways, I was very moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) said about the impact on individuals of serious violent crime in particular. However, although we tend to talk only about the impact on those individuals, there is also an impact on families and communities. Safe streets and safe communities are not the sufficient, but the necessary conditions for a productive, thriving, worthwhile life. Unless you, your family and your community are safe, you cannot bring up your family; unless you, your family and your community are safe, you cannot go to school, go to work and get on in life. That safety is fundamental to everything. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell): this Government, and indeed any British Government, must ensure that the British people feel and are safe, because that is the foundation of everything else that we talk about in this Chamber.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) is no longer in the Chamber, because I want to take on the argument—I admit that it came not from the Labour Front Bench, but from the Liberal Democrats—that spending less time in prison is somehow safer, over either the short or the long term. I believe that that argument is a poor one, and is not borne out by any evidence.

Of course the rehabilitation of prisoners needs to be improved. I think that the Minister, indeed everybody, understands that, and the Government are working hard on it: for them it is a major priority. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), investment in our prison estate also needs to be improved. However, if prisoners spend more time on release when they are dangerous, and there is evidence that they are dangerous because of the offences that they have committed, that poses a danger to the safety of the public.

This statutory instrument is going in the right direction. I should like it to go further, but I take in good part the Minister’s statement that it is a first step and part of a wider range of measures. It is right, and it is right not just for individuals, but for individuals, families and communities. Safer streets and safer communities are the foundation of everything that we talk about in the Chamber. This is what I, as a Member of Parliament, want to represent and will stand for, this is what Conservative Members should always do, and this is what the Government are proving that they are doing by introducing the statutory instrument.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We believe that the £200 million, which was an exceptional sum, based on the extreme risk that this ACM cladding has, is sufficient to provide the necessary support to make the necessary remediation, the reason being that commitments are already in place from a number of private sector developers and builders, as well as other insurers, to see that that work is undertaken. It is on that basis that that sum has been ring-fenced.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

T4. Under this Government, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 25% since 2010, which is a considerable achievement. However, there is much more we can do to make our housing stock much more environmentally friendly. The Minister for Housing knows about this issue, because I have spoken to him about it several times in the past few weeks. Will he or the Secretary of State illustrate what we are doing to deal with it?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He sets out that need for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing homes—that aim is very much shared by the Housing Minister. We plan to consult this year on uplifting the building regulations’ energy-efficiency requirements for new homes and work to existing buildings. Policies are also in place to improve existing homes, and these include the energy company obligation scheme.

Budget Resolutions

Bim Afolami Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, after “tax year 2019-20” insert

“provided that the condition in paragraph (2) of this resolution is met.

(2) The condition in this paragraph is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, no later than 5 April 2019, laid before the House of Commons a distributional analysis of—

(a) the effect of reducing the threshold for the additional rate to £80,000, and

(b) the effect of introducing a supplementary rate of income tax, charged at a rate of 50%, above a threshold of £125,000.”

We have had the fiction and now it is time for the fact. It is a pleasure to open the final day of the Budget debate for the Opposition. This Budget was sold as ending austerity, but it does not do that remotely. It is a Budget of failure; a Budget of broken promises.

Labour is not opposed to any modest benefit—however modest that may be—for lower and middle-income earners, but that measure is the only one that puts some money in their pockets. We also need to support those who do not reach the lower threshold, which is why we support a real living wage, and the restoration of sectoral collective bargaining and trade union rights. However, putting more money into the pockets of higher earners is obviously wrong, which is why the next Labour Government will increase taxes on only the very wealthiest—people with incomes in the top 5% and the corporations that have had a tax cut under the Tories.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Opposition would regard as “the very wealthiest”?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. It is in our amendment and was in our manifesto at the last general election. We mean the people in the top 5% of incomes, and Labour’s amendment sets out the changes to income taxation that we would introduce in order to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am very pleased to be called to speak in this important debate.

I welcome the Budget very much, especially the cut in business rates, which will have a hugely positive impact on many businesses in my constituency. One such business in Aldershot is the butcher Alf Turner, a long-standing establishment founded in 1956. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it is not only Budget week, but UK Sausage Week. I am pleased to report that Paul Turner, the proprietor of Alf Turner, is a supreme sausage champion, having won the UK Sausage Week award for best traditional sausage. Last night he said to me:

“The cuts to business rates from Monday’s Budget are fantastic news for local family-run businesses like mine. Keeping local shops open can only serve our local communities.”

I draw attention to that because the real point is that Paul’s business is successful not because the Government are helping it, but because the Government are letting it get on with what it does best: making great sausages. It creates a superb product that local people choose to buy and is now available nationally. The lesson is the importance of choice. When freedom of choice is allied with the free flow of capital and labour, and protected by property rights and the rule of law, we have a flourishing free market. That is the great genius of our economy and many economies in the west.

[Bim Afolami]

Could my hon. Friend illuminate the House by saying what he fears would happen to small businesses such as the ones in Aldershot that he mentioned if they were subject to the programme of huge tax rises and nationalisation proposed by Labour?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The wholesale economic devastation that would be the consequence of Labour’s nationalisation plan—I do not know whether it has a plan to nationalise sausage production, but I hope not—would be clear. We have to make the case for the free market. In this day and age, it is astonishing that Labour Front Benchers espouse an ideology that totally opposes the free market.

The shadow Chancellor is a self-declared Marxist. The House will know that in 2006 he said:

“I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist”.

He said of the 2008 crash:

“I’ve been waiting for this for a generation”.

In 2017, he stood in front of Communist flags at a May Day parade in London, and just this year he attended the Marx 200 conference in London, at which he claimed:

“Marxism is about the freedom of spirit”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. First, I would like to address the measures in the Budget that relate to the digital economy, including the digital services tax. I declare an interest: I am a former corporate lawyer —I was even more fun when I was doing that. Someone who deals with international transactions and contracts learns that international tax treaties are very complicated and were designed for a time before the current technological revolution. The UK Government are leading the way in clamping down on the admittedly difficult and perhaps unsavoury practices of multinational tech firms. Of course, the digital services tax will not deal with that completely, but it is a step in the right direction. As I say, we are one of the first Governments in the world to do anything like this, and I commend it to the House.

Turning to my constituency, I want to address the measures relating to the high street. We all know that the high street has been under significant pressure over the past few years. Whenever I speak to the owners of small independent shops in both Hitchin and Harpenden, they say that business rates are a significant problem, so I look forward to telling them this weekend about the cut of a third in their business rates, if their rateable value is under £51,000. That measure will be of huge benefit to my independent shops and I commend it to the House.

Even more important than the cut in business rates is the £675 million future high streets fund because it will help to enable our local authorities and local areas to take leadership and act on their own initiative to reshape their high streets to deal with the modern world and its challenges. I urge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, to make sure that this money gets to local councils as soon as possible so that we can get on with making improvements.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget’s tax cuts will also help the high street by ensuring that regular people have more money in their pockets to spend in high street shops, thereby improving the whole economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming to tax cuts because, particularly in relation to the high streets, they are a classic piece of positive Conservative economics that will increase demand and help consumer spending, and thereby help the high street. I commend the Chancellor and the Treasury team for putting the policy forward in the Budget.

On tax cuts more broadly, if someone is one of the 1.74 million people who, in only the last two years, the Government have taken out of tax altogether, that side is against them; this side is for them. If someone is one of the 25 million basic rate taxpayers who have saved more than £1,000 in real terms since 2010, that side is against them; this side is for them. If someone has the temerity to want to earn over £50,000—yes, there are people who want to do that—that side is against them; this side is for them. The Budget not only backs the NHS with the biggest cash increase in its history, not only backs the high street and not only backs working people up and down this country, but backs Britain. This party backs Britain; the other side does not.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Tenant Fees Bill

Bim Afolami Excerpts

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

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We clearly need to be more specific. I accept the principle set out by my hon. Friend the Minister that we should not put this in the Bill, but it should be put in regulations, because we can change regulations rather more easily and add things to them at an appropriate time without having to go through primary legislation once again. This is a question of detail that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at again.

The other issue is charges for, for example, lost keys, cleaning or damage that may be done to a property. Those are reasonable costs that a tenant should incur. If that has to be set out in the tenancy agreement, it must be made crystal clear in what we lay out in regulations and guidance to landlords what is allowed and what is not allowed. In particular, things that are not allowed must be specified as being completely outwith the potential of the Bill, as opposed to being in the Bill.

I thank the Minister and his team for looking at and reflecting many of the recommendations that the Select Committee made on the draft Bill. With a few more tweaks, this can be an excellent Bill that we can all be very proud of.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I rise in support of this Bill and my hon. Friend the Minister. During the Bill’s passage, he has conducted himself, as I think everybody in all parts of this House has already recognised, with the utmost sincerity and courtesy to all parties, both inside and outside the House.

I served on the Bill Committee—entirely voluntarily, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having listened to the exchanges in Committee and today, it strikes me that there are a couple of points where there is complete agreement in all parts of the House. There is agreement that the average letting agent fees have gone up by 60% over the past six or seven years, and that there is a growing problem of tenants feeling that they are less empowered in relation to their tenancies and letting in the private sector market.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill

Bim Afolami Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is outside the scope of this Bill, but we are talking about a voluntary pilot that is starting in the west midlands and we will see where that takes us.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

On election manifestos, does the Minister not agree that this Bill is fulfilling a Conservative manifesto promise and that that should be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention, with which I can only agree.

As I was saying, for this reason we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing the Office for National Statistics classification of housing associations as private sector organisations. Housing associations grant assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988, including assured lifetime tenancies, and will continue to have the flexibility to grant lifetime tenancies as they see fit.

This amendment would bring housing associations back into the public sector regime, which they have not properly been part of since 1989, by requiring housing associations to grant secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985. That goes beyond the very limited circumstances in which they are still obliged to give a secure tenancy—this is limited to those tenants who already have one predating 1989 and want to move, so this is known and in the books of the commercial housing association. Assured and secure tenancies have different rights. For example, secure tenants have a statutory right to improve their property, and be compensated for those improvements, in certain circumstances. To require housing associations to grant secure tenancies for this group of tenants would mean housing association landlords having to operate two different systems, which would be an unnecessary burden over and above the very limited circumstances in which they still manage pre-1989 tenancies, and would introduce unnecessary additional costs and liabilities. As I have already said, that could risk the re-classification of housing associations.

The amendment is also completely unnecessary: housing associations will continue to have the freedom, which they have now, to offer lifetime tenancies wherever they consider it appropriate. When schedule 7 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force, local authorities will generally be required to offer fixed-term tenancies, and will be able to grant lifetime tenancies only in the limited circumstances specified in legislation or regulations. That is why the Bill is so important. The purpose of housing associations is to provide and manage homes for people in housing need. The vast majority are charities, and their charitable objectives require them to put tenants at the heart of everything they do. We expect housing associations to take very seriously their responsibilities for people fleeing domestic violence and abuse.

In previous debates on the Bill, I have mentioned the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, which was set up by two leading housing associations, Peabody and Gentoo, along with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, a UK charity that brings communities together to end domestic abuse. The alliance’s stated mission is to improve the housing sector’s response to domestic abuse through the introduction and adoption of an established set of standards and an accreditation process.

I understand that the National Housing Federation, the body that represents housing associations, is actively taking forward work with its membership to tackle domestic abuse, and has recently set up a national domestic abuse group for its membership. The group was set up specifically to raise awareness among housing associations of the steps that they can take to minimise the impact of domestic abuse, as well as of how to spot the signs early and how best to support victims. My officials have been in touch with the NHF, and I am really pleased to say that it has expressed an interest in considering the tenancy issue as part of that work. That is a really positive development, and it adds to the information that I was able to give in Committee. With that in mind, and for the reasons that I have given, I invite Members to withdraw the new clause and amendments. I look forward to more debate.

--- Later in debate ---

I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments and to colleagues on both sides of the House for the contributions they have made. This is a very important Bill. It is a short Bill, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said at the outset, but it is a hugely significant one, and that is why I wanted to share these comments.

[Bim Afolami]

I am aware that many others wish to speak, so I will be brief. Those who are still left in the Public Gallery have seen today the best of Parliament. This is the complete opposite of yah-boo politics. There has been cross-party discussion about a Bill that generally appears to have cross-party support. We should welcome that and welcome the exchange of ideas and views. That does not always happen in this Chamber, but it has happened today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, this is a short Bill. It is clear and to the point, and it deals with a specific problem. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, she will see many references to her speech, but let me add one more. The disagreement from Conservative Members with certain points she made was not on the substance of the issue, but on the appropriateness of those points in relation to the Bill. However, I am sure that she, the Minister and others will continue to work on this issue, and I think that Members across all parties appreciate her expertise in this area.

One point in particular is worth making. Labour Members have spoken about the spare room subsidy, which is not really the subject of the Bill, but I want to make the point that it is critical to get more social housing built. For the Bill to be effective, we really need as much social housing as possible to be built. If they take a look at the record, as I have, they will see that roughly 2,900 local authority homes a year were built from 1997 to 2010, while under this Government—about half of that time—over 10,000 local authority homes a year were built from 2010 to 2017. Labour Members must look at their own record on social housing, and realise that a lot of the problems we now face are partly down to the fact that they did not build enough homes when they were in office. I know that the Minister and the Government are working on that.

I finish by agreeing with the Minister and other Conservative Members that I do not believe the new clause and amendments are appropriate in this context, and I shall vote against them for that reason.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which would have a specific impact on local authorities in Scotland, including in my constituency. I would say at the outset, in relation to the thrust of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), that I agree about the need for more co-operation across the United Kingdom, and I will come on to that shortly. The difficulty, as shown by the fact that I am the only Scottish MP in the Chamber, is that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle to do so, because it cuts across some devolved areas, and I want to go into that in a little more detail.

The Government have a strong record on domestic abuse, and the Bill is a further example of that. We have criminalised coercive and bullying behaviour, and we have made sure that we have domestic violence orders. We currently have an open consultation, which provides the potential for more powers and a greater understanding of other types of crimes, such as economic abuse, that are often unseen. That is certainly the experience of many of my constituents, as many people in public authority have seen.

My knowledge of this matter has largely come from my constituents, as well as from some of my own family experience. Many of my constituents have relationships that span the United Kingdom. Men and women who have had such relationships may have some children in England and some in Scotland, so there is a real need for co-ordination and for a UK minimum standard. I have seen at first hand, in refuges and in my constituency office, the bravery of these women as well as the hardship that they have endured. I know how much of an impact there can be on individual lives, and how much need there is for them to move from one local authority to another, which may not be an adjacent one but a local authority far up the country in Scotland or somewhere in England.

Members have talked a lot about the terrible abuse that women have endured, and we know that domestic abuse has a disproportionate impact on women. It is also important to say, however, that 700,000 men were victims of domestic abuse in 2015-16, and that young people are also victims. When we talk about giving people opportunities in secure tenancies in other local authorities around the country, we need to ensure that we capture everyone, because domestic abuse affects many different types of individual at many different ages.

As I have said, and I will keep my remarks brief, a national minimum is desirable. I very much feel that there are times when we are four nations and many regions, but there are also times when we are one country. On this issue, I believe that having a national minimum would be incredibly desirable. I am very keen to work with Opposition Members, certainly as we examine other pieces of legislation in this place, on having UK-wide frameworks, especially in new policy areas, to make sure that there are UK-wide minimums, even if the services are delivered through devolved Administrations, local authorities or other devolved agencies. I am very willing to help in such a way. Unfortunately, however, as the Bill is targeted at England, making an amendment to loop in what is a devolved area in Scotland—it would have an impact in my local authority and others—this is not the best place to do so. I hope to work with Opposition Members in future to try to develop policies on such minimums.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue in the spirit of consultation that she always shows in relation to the devolved Administrations, and perhaps she will consider extending her audit of services elsewhere in the United Kingdom—beyond England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Transport

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Minister’s reply to the Adjournment debate on 18 April 2018.

[Bim Afolami]

First, when was the decision made to make changes to East Midlands trains that would impact Harpenden? At what stage were changes to Harpenden’s services considered and decided upon?

[Joseph Johnson]

This has been one of the biggest timetabling changes the system has ever undertaken and, as I have said, it will not have satisfied everybody in its first iteration. However, December is coming along in not too lengthy a period of time, and hon. Members are always welcome to put suggestions to the Department and to their operators for consideration.

The impact of the midland main line works only became apparent to us in November 2017, as I mentioned. This short timeline meant that a specific consultation for Harpenden passengers was simply not a viable option.

[Official Report, 18 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 437.]

Letter of correction from Joseph Johnson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) during his Adjournment debate on Thameslink Upgrades.

The correct response should have been:

Thameslink Upgrades

Bim Afolami Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to discuss this issue and for meeting me to discuss it previously. I also thank the Secretary of State for the numerous conversations about it that we have had in recent weeks. I have been forced to initiate this debate to ensure that Harpenden commuters get the good service that they deserve and pay good money for, rather than facing years of disruption and a worse service.

Lest I forget to mention the other half of my constituency, let me say at the outset that I am very aware of concern about the changes in the timetable for trains travelling from Hitchin station—in the north of my constituency—as well as those travelling from Harpenden. I will correspond with the Minister on that in due course and in further detail, but it will not constitute the main thrust of my remarks this evening.

I am sure that the desired outcome for Thameslink is, eventually, a greatly improved service throughout the network, but the immediate negative impact on commuters in Harpenden for the next two years is unacceptable to my constituents and to me. The key issue is a loss of services during peak morning and evening hours. Thameslink deems the peak morning period to be between 7 am and 9.59 am, which has led to much disagreement between Harpenden commuters—and myself—and the operator. Regardless of what Thameslink calls the “peak”, most commuters from Harpenden travel to work between the hours of 6.30 am and 8.30 am, and between these times Harpenden will see a net loss in service of two fast trains. These fast trains are only partly compensated for by lengthening some trains from eight to 12 carriages, and Thameslink putting on extra trains after 9 am to meet its peak-time requirements is not going to help anybody trying to get to work on time in London. In practical terms, the overall loss is eight carriages in that key two-hour slot, which represents a loss of capacity for over 1,100 people, who will mostly have to stand.

Not only is the current demand from Harpenden station to London extremely high, but in addition there will be an increased number of passengers on the train before it gets to Harpenden station, as East Midlands Trains is reducing the number of trains stopping at Bedford, so many thousands of effectively new commuters will also be using these services. To sum up, Harpenden is getting a reduction in service and an increase in passengers—and I am not even getting into the general growth of Harpenden as a town over the next couple of years—making the commute not merely inconvenient but, for many, unbearable.

Let us compare this situation with that for St Albans, a town not far from Harpenden. Commuters from St Albans will be gaining fast trains during peak hours, as well as slow trains, and a net increase of 44 carriages. To put that in context, that is six times the number that Harpenden is losing. I am fully aware that St Albans has approximately double the footfall of Harpenden, but it would be clear to any objective observer that a considered approach by Thameslink and Network Rail should not lead to such a discrepancy.

I am a realist—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker; you know me—and I recognise that changes will always need to be made to train timetables, but consultation for changes is, and should always be, key, not just because people deserve the chance to have their say on changes that can significantly affect their working lives and their lives more generally, but because it gives a chance to inform local people how proposed changes can be improved for all concerned.

There was an embarrassing lack of consultation on these changes. The Minister has admitted that there was never going to be a consultation because it would be “disingenuous” to consult as there were no “genuine options”. That is not good enough for a timetable change of this scale. I have had several meetings over the past few weeks with experts on these matters, with expertise from the technical—it took me a while to understand what they were talking about, but I got there—to the bureaucratic and organisational. Some of those experts live in Harpenden but others live outside. They said to me that alternative choices could have been made that impact on Harpenden, and the entire line more broadly, much less and much more evenly.

In addition to hearing the Minister’s response on the lack of consultation, I would like to know what measures Thameslink intends to take to monitor the impact of the timetable changes that will be introduced in May over the coming months, to reassess them in the autumn and offer a clear timescale on when customers can finally expect to see improvements. What commitment is there to listen to and, more importantly, act on feedback from customers following the introduction of the proposed timetable changes?

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will understand that the changes for his commuters from Harpenden and mine from Luton are a direct result of East Midlands trains being taken out in the peak in the mornings and the running of fast services to replace that. He is right to say that speed is of the essence, and making sure this situation is not prolonged for three years or so is something on which the Minister should focus.

[Bim Afolami]

The hon. Gentleman is well informed on these issues and is generally well informed when he speaks in the House. The focus of my remarks is Harpenden, but I agree that this affects many colleagues on both sides of the House, and I urge the Minister to bear all these specific concerns in mind.

It is a term of the franchise agreement between Thameslink and the Department for Transport that if there is a “material adverse impact” on passengers because of changes, there must be a 12-week consultation period. Before the debate, I asked the Minister and the Secretary of State several times whether they agreed that these changes did in fact represent a material adverse impact. I also asked them how, if they disagreed, they would characterise the changes.

I want to make this point clear to the House. The impact of these timetable changes goes beyond just changing what time people arrive at work or at home. A key issue that has been raised with me time and again is the impact on working parents, especially working mothers. Working parents have particularly tight windows for getting into work and getting home. I know, as the parent to two small boys, Zach and Sam, and as the husband of a working mother, that organising childcare around a commute is a hugely important factor in any working parent’s day. It is therefore unacceptable for Thameslink’s changes to cause so much disruption to so many people.

Let me describe the impact of these changes on my constituents. I shall use as examples two people who have emailed me about this matter. The first constituent states:

“I am a mother of three school age children and am recovering from breast cancer. In the recent months, I have chosen to catch a semi fast service, 0718, to be able to get a seat to minimise the stress and impact on my health. This service will no longer stop at Harpenden. I will have to catch an earlier train on which there is unlikely to be seats due both to the reduction in trains and the fact that Thameslink will have thousands of extra customers a day due to East Midland Trains reducing the services stopping at Bedford and Luton. I am concerned about the impact on my health, my ability to get to work on time and on the time I can spend with my children.”

The second constituent has said:

“I fear for my wife who has to drop our son at nursery at 0730 and therefore has no option but to travel at an already busy time. I can’t see anything other than a negative impact for her on what is already a far from ideal journey given the current numbers of people using those services, lack of space and seats. The return journey may be considerably worse than today and the reduction in services could potentially make it difficult to get back to the nursery on time, particularly when there are problems with track or trains.”

Those are just two examples, but similar concerns have been repeated again and again by worried parents and by people across Harpenden of all ages and circumstances who commute to London for work.

I accept—and I am sure the Minister will agree—that dealing with Britain’s train network is a real challenge for the Department, for Network Rail and for the Ministers and senior civil servants involved. Overcrowding on the network is nothing new, with rail passenger journeys more than doubling in the past 20 years. St Pancras is a key destination for Harpenden commuters, and at that station alone, more than 36,000 passengers arrive during the morning peak, with another 30,000 going to Blackfriars station, which has the worst overcrowding in London. Passenger numbers on the trains from Harpenden have grown year on year, with the service now bursting at the seams, as any Harpenden commuter who gets on the train at peak time will tell us.

The use of Thameslink has grown faster than was expected when the programme began. The predicted yearly increase in passenger numbers was between 0.5% and 1% over the lifetime of the Thameslink programme. However, Thameslink now carries 40% more passengers than it did seven years ago. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a proud member, has reported on Thameslink’s problems and recently found that the knock-on effect of issues along the entire Thameslink network means that the number of trains reaching their destination within five minutes of their scheduled time has fallen from 91.4% to 83%.

It is important to make the point that the growth in passenger numbers is an indication of the success of the service. Harpenden would not be such a desirable place to live if the service was not, broadly speaking, a good one. However, with that passenger growth comes the immense challenge of managing it appropriately and keeping costs down for passengers, and I am afraid that Thameslink appears to be failing on both counts.

Bearing in mind the extent of overcrowding and the increasingly stretched service that I have described, Harpenden commuters into London currently pay just over £3,800 a year for an annual ticket, and well over £4,000 if a tube travelcard is included, which most commuters need. By comparison, a season ticket from Woking—I have nothing against Woking; they are very nice people—which is a similar distance from London, is £400 cheaper. Basildon—again, a wonderful place with nice people—to London is £1,000 cheaper for a similar distance. My point is that Harpenden commuters are paying their fair share. They are travelling the same distance for more money and face a real disruption to services without any compensation.

All the issues—the timetable changes, delayed services and overcrowding—have caused huge concern for my constituents and have resulted in me raising questions repeatedly with both the Secretary of State and the Minister. In respect of the upcoming changes, due to come into force on 21 May after at least two years, there are some key questions that need to be addressed that have so far gone unanswered.

First, when was the decision made to make changes to East Midlands trains that would impact Harpenden? At what stage were changes to Harpenden’s services considered and decided upon? Secondly, will the Minister explain why Harpenden is experiencing a loss in services during peak morning and evening times, while St Albans, as I have described, is experiencing a big increase, especially considering the increased footfall from Bedford through Harpenden?

Thirdly, given the increase in passenger numbers combined with a reduction in frequency and capacity of service, what will be the impact on Harpenden commuters of Bedford passengers travelling on Thameslink services during peak times? How many more passengers will be on the London trains arriving in Harpenden in the morning as a result of the timetable changes?

Fourthly, by Govia Thameslink Railway’s own admittance, some of the proposed improvements that will come into effect at the end of 2018 are at the mercy of engineering works further down the line in Kent. What is the risk realistically that those works will not be completed in time, therefore extending even further the problems that Harpenden commuters are facing? Fifthly, there is huge concern about the lack of consultation with local people, despite the material adverse impact to services of timetable changes. To add insult to injury, Thameslink still claims that the service will not be significantly impacted. Does the Minister agree that there will be a material adverse change and that there should have been a consultation? If he does not, how does he view the changes? Finally, and most importantly, when will Harpenden commuters get the service they deserve and have been promised for so long?

I have not come to the Chamber just to complain. There are proposed solutions available that could be implemented as soon as May, despite the insistence from senior officials at GTR that they are not workable. I put several suggestions to GTR officials when we met a few weeks ago, yet there has been no consultation to discuss the alternatives. One suggestion is that five trains from Bedford to London should stop at Harpenden in addition to stopping at St Albans, which would add between three and four minutes to the journey. I understand that there are complexities in getting all the trains to London at a reasonable time, bearing in mind the extra three or four minutes, but the experts to whom I have spoken do not believe that they are insurmountable. Another simpler solution that would increase capacity, although it would not solve the issue of train frequency, would be for the Minister to declassify all first-class carriages during peak times. That would give some much-needed relief to passengers on what will be an increasingly overcrowded service.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Harpenden Thameslink Commuters Group, notably Emily Ketchin, for its tireless campaigning and lobbying. Harpenden councillors have not been far behind, particularly Mary Maynard and Teresa Heritage, and I thank them for helping me to understand how much the changes have affected Harpenden residents.

There will be those, not in this Chamber now but outside, who do not think timetable changes or impacts on commuters are really that important, but I believe that that is of critical importance, and not just to the individual passengers, as I have set out. If we want to keep London and the south-east as the most dynamic regional economy in Europe, people need to be able to get to work on time, not packed like cattle, at a reasonable price. Importantly, when major changes are made to their service—such changes must happen from time to time—passengers should be consulted and treated like adults and paying customers.

I know that the Minister wants to do his best for Harpenden commuters. I also know that he is a highly intelligent and thoughtful man, as the whole House will appreciate. I ask him to consider carefully the concerns of Harpenden commuters that I have expressed in this debate, to give them hope that the future will be better with an improved, not reduced, service, and to strengthen their damaged faith in our rail transport network.