Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on that point and on a number of other points she raised, and I thank her again for the work she has done in this area for many years. I, too, am concerned about some of the information that came to light this week, and the public inquiry is there to examine any allegations relating to who knew what and when. It would be wrong of us to duplicate the inquiry’s efforts, because it is a public inquiry that has the powers to summon witnesses to give evidence and to carry out other forms of evidence gathering, which is the right way to do this. I agree with the hon. Lady that compensation cannot come fast enough and that Post Office Ltd has to rebuild trust not just with the wider public; key to this are the postmasters.

Yes, of course we want to make sure that people get fair compensation. May I point gently to the performance so far of the group litigation order scheme? Fifty-eight full claims have been received, 48 offers have been made and 41 have been accepted without going to the next level, which is the independent panel. That tends to indicate that those offers are fair, because people have recourse to the appeal process. I am aware of one or two high-profile cases where people say they have not been offered a fair amount. I cannot talk about individual cases, but we urge any of those individuals to go to the next stage of the process, which is the independent panel. The whole scheme is overseen by Sir Ross Cranston, who has a very good reputation both in this House and further afield. We absolutely believe that the process will offer fair compensation, but we urge people to return to the table and ensure that their claim is properly considered by all means available.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this issue—not only on the Front Bench, but on the Back Benches. No amount of compensation can compensate the victims of this complete scandal. However, it does help, and speeding up the process is obviously important. Will he, during the passage of the legislation that the Government have promised to introduce, ensure that innocent victims are not only compensated, but completely exonerated? In their communities, they have suffered the stigma attached to all this, and they need to have their names cleared and their reputations restored.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his regular contributions on this subject, which he frequently raised prior to the ITV series. I appreciate his work.

My hon. Friend is right to say that no amount of compensation can make up for what happened to many people’s lives. We want all the innocent people to be exonerated. We know there is nervousness, with some victims not trusting the process—they have simply had enough. We met Howe & Co., one of the solicitors, to talk about this issue yesterday, and its contention is that around 40% of the people who received a letter saying, “We will not oppose an appeal,” still will not come forward. We need a process that does not require people to come forward if we are to have a mass exoneration of those affected by this horrendous scandal. We hope to announce that later today.

Post Office Ltd

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that premise. I do not see any evidence of the compensation schemes trying to minimise payments. The independent panel for the Horizon shortfall scheme included Lord Garnier, for example, and seven or eight KCs—very reputable people seeking to do the right thing—so we must be careful in our rhetoric. Of course we want to ensure that people get their full and fair compensation. That is why we implemented the Horizon compensation advisory board, which includes Lord Arbuthnot, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Chris Hodges and Professor Moorhead. They are decent people who want to ensure that people get treated fairly, and full and fair compensation is what people will get.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Clearly, in the wake of the Horizon scandal, there is a need for massive change in the culture driving Post Office management, particularly in its relationship with sub-postmasters, who are, after all, running private businesses under contract with—not owned by—the Post Office. Will the Minister ensure that whoever is appointed chairman commits themselves thoroughly to that culture change, and, if necessary, will he change other board members to ensure that we get the change that we all want to see?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good point. In the past, the relationship between Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters has not been where it should have been. It is important that that changes. There has been much work on this: 100 area managers have been appointed to help build that relationship, and some of the past conduct and culture of the Post Office has changed. However, we know that it needs to change further. That is the job of the board; we need the right leader of the board in order to do that—hence the action that we took over the weekend.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman has been a regular contributor on this issue. We are keen to include “no public interest” cases within the scope. They are currently treated slightly differently in terms of compensation. Not everybody has the same route to compensation, but the advisory board has been very keen to make sure that there is a single way forward for people who have suffered from convictions.

Some people are nervous about coming forward. Various bodies, including the Criminal Cases Review Commission, have written to people with convictions. There is work to ensure that anybody who might have suffered as a result of this scandal is properly communicated with by someone they trust. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the advisory board about whether we have done enough and whether we could do more.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Hundreds of individuals have been wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. I commend my hon. Friend for his work. In his statement, he mentioned the malevolence that took place during these prosecutions. How is it right that individuals who gave false evidence are potentially still in post? Why are Post Office managers still in post when they knew what was happening? Should they not be brought to account and lose their livelihoods and pensions, rather than those who were wrongly convicted?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The short answer is yes; people who are guilty of offences—ones that can be prosecuted—should be brought to account. All kinds of different routes might be available to make sure they suffer as a result of their actions. We are keen to make sure that happens.

We think the inquiry is the right route to expose the evidence. Of course, our prosecutors can look at the evidence before the inquiry at any point. Anybody can see what is happening in the inquiry. We hope that the inquiry identifies those responsible, and that suitable action is taken against those people and organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is complete nonsense. This week, I met Helen Dickenson from the Retail Sector Council to discuss this matter closely. There are certain situations in certain companies of course. I guard the hon. Gentleman against political opportunism on the back of those 12,500 jobs, many of which have been picked up by other retailers such as Poundland in rescues of stores. On his point about business rates, which I hear time and again, all the Labour party has done is say that it will cancel £22 billion of business rates, without saying how it will replace those taxation receipts. Where is the money coming from?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T4. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both been in India recently and had the opportunity to negotiate further on the wonderful trade deal that we wish to do. Her predecessor but one or two promised a trade deal with India by Diwali. Of course, they did not mention which year. Diwali this year is later than normal; what confidence does she have that we will have it in place by Diwali this year?

Post Office Horizon IT Scandal: Compensation

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his work. He is right to say that there are three schemes, which might be described as suboptimal. As Sir Wyn has said on this occasion and previous occasions, we are where we find ourselves, and we must push on. That is the easiest way and the best way to get compensation for those affected.

I referred in my initial remarks to the request that the right hon. Gentleman has made for an appeal mechanism. We are considering that carefully. I think he would acknowledge that whenever he has come to me with something that he thinks we should consider, we have always done that and are keen to deliver the mechanisms that the board requires.

The delays in disclosure were unacceptable, without question, and the Post Office has apologised for that. You are only as good as your last game, and the Post Office has to up its game; there is no doubt about it. We have a governance review into earlier issues around remuneration and the metrics regarding bonuses, which were found to be completely inappropriate. We are waiting for that report, which I should receive by the end of this month. We will take that under advisement, as we do any other evidence we receive about the operation of the board of the Post Office.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the update. Some 555 individuals have suffered incredible destitution and injustice for far too long. This has gone on for more than 20 years, and some people have died during this process. Will he ensure that the Post Office owns up to what it has done and that the individuals who were responsible for covering this up 20 years ago are brought to justice, rather than this leaving a stain on the reputations of the postmasters and postmistresses, who are totally innocent of any crime?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue. He is right: 62 people have passed away while awaiting compensation. It is simply unacceptable. My Department is looking at creative ways of accelerating the process of providing compensation to the victims.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for people to be held to account, and I spoke about that on a number of occasions from the Back Benches. It is right that people are held to account. It is also right that due process is followed. Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry is there to identify what went wrong and why and who was responsible, and once that is done we should make a judgment about what happens to those people, but I am keen, like my hon. Friend, that people are held to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no waiting at all and the issue is constantly on our agenda. This week I met the Post Office leadership to look at the sustainability of post offices. We are keen to ensure that the post office network is sustainable, and that sub-postmasters are remunerated fairly. We provide financing to the post office network to ensure it is sustainable, with £2.5 billion over the past 10 years, and that will continue. We are determined to ensure that that network is sustainable and provides those services for our citizens.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T6. This month we are due to have the seventh round of trade talks with our partners in India, working towards a free trade agreement. My right hon. Friend’s predecessor but one promised a free trade deal by Diwali. What assessment has she made about achieving a free trade deal by Diwali this year?

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

No? The Minister shakes his head. I thought he had served on that board subsequently.

The key point I remember from serving on that body is how difficult it is, in London in particular, to deal with fires in high-rise buildings—buildings so high that the fire brigade cannot put ladders up—and with the people in those buildings and how we train firefighters to deal with that type of tragedy. We cannot replicate what our brave firefighters faced on that night in training. It cannot be done. We can try to prepare them for it and teach them what to do in certain circumstances, but replicating what they had to do and suffer is almost impossible. Training and ensuring firefighters are fit and healthy and able to cope with such conditions is obviously at the forefront of what our fire brigades have to do. As others have mentioned, we must praise the bravery of the firefighters who went into a living hell to combat the fire and get the people out from Grenfell that night.

As the hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned, we should remember that the fire was caused by an electrical fault, which raises a question, as he said, about the testing of appliances and how we make sure they are fit for purpose. If we buy goods and services, we expect the supplier to have made sure they are safe, and if they are not, there is a liability on the suppliers and manufacturers. We should look at that issue. Another concern is the testing of wiring not just in high-rise buildings but in all buildings. I will come back to that in a moment.

As was found in the inquiry and as we heard already, there was much confusion on the night about what was going on with the fire brigade. The firefighters went into the initial flat to combat the fire, and in many ways that was routine. We should remember that it was not the first fire in Grenfell; there had been others there and in other blocks across London and up and down the country. The compartmentalisation of these units should mean that a fire is contained within the unit. Then the fire can be put out and everyone made safe. That is the fundamental point of the “stay put” policy encouraged and promoted by the fire brigade. What the fire brigade did not know was that the fire had spread to the external cladding. As those firefighters were leaving, others were trying to go in and deal with the fire that had engulfed the tower block. There were clearly confusions. We hear and read in the report, which makes horrific reading, about the circumstances of the senior officers on site, about what training they had been given and about what they could do in such circumstances. I do not criticise them, but they were clearly underprepared and ill trained to deal with the terrible tragedy that was unfolding before them.

I have had the privilege of serving on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the last nine and a half years, and we have looked at building regulations on several occasions. We have also conducted two inquiries on the Grenfell fire. Not only have I been present for the statements, urgent questions and updates that we have heard from various Secretaries of State and other Ministers, but I have had the opportunity to go through a lot of the detail that has emerged about Grenfell. The Committee made recommendations on two separate occasions, and there is clearly concern about the pace at which the Government have moved. There have been plenty of consultations, but I am concerned about the fact that they have not necessarily, at all times, moved swiftly enough. People up and down the country are still living in tower blocks with unsafe cladding, and two and a half or three years on, that is absolutely unacceptable. We must speed up the process of removing that cladding and making those blocks safe.

The Select Committee had the opportunity to interview Dame Judith Hackitt. She is an admirable individual who gives robust answers, looks at the evidence and is clearly to be respected. I welcome the fact that she will head the new regulator, because that will make a clear difference.

Changes in building regulations also need to be implemented swiftly. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about ensuring that the necessary regulations are in place, but I think that we should look again at part P, which was the subject of one of the Select Committee’s past inquiries. The regulations applying to gas fitters are stringent, but those applying to electrical fittings are very lax. People can qualify as electricians after two or three days’ training, and then conduct electrical works in both Houses, and in flats and high-rise buildings. As long as someone comes along and signs off the work, that is deemed acceptable, but in my view it is not acceptable. Most householders in this country do not understand what responsibilities they take on for electrical safety when electrical work is conducted in their own homes. I want us to look into that, because although it was not a fundamental cause of this fire, electrical work may be the fundamental cause of other fires if it is not done properly.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) put her finger on the issue of the cladding on Grenfell. The inquiry has made it clear that the cladding did not comply with building regulations, and we have found in our inquiries that that is true up and down the country. I have made this point repeatedly: if the cladding was not compliant with building regulations, someone must have signed it off as being compliant. Someone gave it approval. I am afraid that whoever gives approval for these things must be brought to account, because if they are not compliant with building regulations, someone in a position of responsibility is saying that a building is safe when clearly it is not. I do not want to go into what happened at Grenfell, because there are police inquiries and part 2 of the inquiry will continue, but clearly this is a matter of concern up and down the country.

One fundamental concern that I have is that some leaseholders and other individuals who believed they were buying a flat or other property that was perfectly safe, are now being told that they might have to pay towards removing the cladding and replacing it with a safer type. The fact is that someone, somewhere said the cladding was safe according to the building regulations—and if they did, who is responsible, and why should leaseholders be funding the work? Clearly, there is a failure of corporate governance across the piece in preventing that from happening.

Another fundamental issue is fire doors. When fire doors at Grenfell were tested originally, because there was a concern that they should be able to resist fire for 30 minutes, they actually resisted fire for 15. There is a fundamental issue, therefore, of whether such fire doors are fit for purpose. If fire doors do not keep back fire, fire will spread and people who are trying to get out of those buildings will not have time to do so safely.

When we have looked at the various building regulations and the changes that need to be made, we have been looking at them in relation to tests that have been conducted on cladding and so on. We must challenge: are those tests fit for purpose? Do they replicate a real fire, when there is fire all around, as opposed to direct contact of flame on a door or cladding? When there is fire all around, does that fire door or cladding get consumed in a way that no one envisaged in tests? I would challenge whether our tests are now fit for purpose to justify the assertion of safety for people up and down this country.

A wide variety of buildings need to have their cladding removed and made safe.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend raises the point, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), about whether ACM cladding complied with the building regulations. He would probably agree that the evidence we have taken in the Select Committee is that the building regulations, particularly Approved Document B, are ambiguous. It is clearly set out within Government guidance that there are two ways that external walls may meet the building regulations, and one of them is that each individual component of the wall meets the required standard, but in Approved Document B it certainly appears that the required standard is a combustible standard. That is the difficulty that we are wrestling with, which might explain why so many buildings up and down the country have combustible cladding on their external surfaces.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an expert in this field. In the previous Parliament, his expertise was much appreciated by all his fellow members on the HCLG Committee. He draws attention to a fundamental issue, which we must be cognisant of. Where there is lack of clarity or confusion, people not unreasonably ask, “What should we do? What standard do we put our buildings up at? What tests do we apply? What is reasonable?”—because everything is risk-based. We need to look at that in some detail.

In my opinion, the “stay put” policy that is implemented by both the London fire brigade and other brigades must be examined in detail. If, under compartmentalisation, a building is safe and a fire breaks out in one part of it, it is a sensible policy that the fire is eliminated in that part of the building and other people do not try to escape from the building unnecessarily. If a fire spreads from one compartment to another, that is when the building has to be evacuated straightaway. That is the examination that has to take place.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

rose—

Equitable Life

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have no doubt that the co-chairman of the APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), will make a substantial contribution to this debate. He has been involved in this for more years than he probably cares to remember.

The previous Government promised some degree of compensation to the victims of this horrible scandal. I was a candidate at the 2010 general election, and in the run-up to it, the only pledge that Conservative campaign headquarters asked me to sign was that we would give full compensation to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal. I regard that pledge, which I signed, as one to the electorate and it is something I will honour. I believe that the Conservative party should honour it in full, and I welcome anyone else who will join me.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his hard work and persistence on the issue over many years. A number of my constituents, like his, have been affected by the scandal, but have received merely a fraction of what they are due and what the parliamentary ombudsman ruled they should receive. The Treasury’s reason for that was pressure on the public finances, but now that the public finances are in a better place, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time to compensate the victims of this scandal properly?

[Bob Blackman]

I completely agree, and I will come on to our asks in a few minutes.

When we were elected in 2010 and the coalition Government came to the fore, that Government took action, as is acknowledged in the motion, and I was pleased that they did so. The piece of legislation to provide compensation was almost the first to be put through the House after the election.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley]

As the lonely Member on the SNP Benches, and given that the Bill applies solely to England, I will endeavour to keep my comments brief. The Government’s Bill is, however, welcome.

This Government are playing catch-up with the Scottish Government, who abolished tenant fees in 2011. The Scottish reforms gave tenants longer notice periods, indefinite security of tenure and limited rent rises, so it is most welcome that this Government are making changes here now. In Scotland, in many instances, money has gone back into the pockets of Scottish renters, but renters in England are currently losing out due to this Government’s inaction and failure to offer the same protections.

The Government have maintained the right-to-buy policy, but they must recognise that to give people the greatest choice and flexibility, they have to ensure that the opportunity of the right to buy is matched with an increase in home building and access to socially affordable housing. I am afraid the Government have not quite hit the mark on that yet, and people are simply being driven into the private rented sector, which limits their options and opportunities.

The Bill is very welcome. As we heard from Conservative Members, there remains the fear that this policy will mean that the costs of the abolished fees will be passed on to tenants in an underhand way, but that concern is unfounded. It has not happened in Scotland, where there has not been a significant spike in rents since the ban on fees, so I hope that the Government will take heed of that fact. Independent research commissioned by Shelter found that since 2012 landlords in Scotland had been no more likely to increase rents than landlords in other parts of the UK. Between 2012 and 2016, rents increased by 5% in Scotland, compared with 9% in England, so the abolition of tenant fees does not appear to have had a significant impact on costs.

That said, although such a policy has been shown to work in tenants’ favour, we must be vigilant about rent prices, so I hope that the Minister will outline how the Government will ensure that their policy puts tenants first. Landlords in Scotland can only increase rents with three months’ notice and no more than once a year, and tenants can contact a rent officer if they think that a rent increase is too high. I would be interested to know whether the Minister envisages similar protections and criteria for the policy in England. In Scotland, other than rent and a refundable deposit, which is capped at no more than two months’ rent, landlords cannot levy any additional charges, which means no holding deposits, administration fees, premiums or additional charges, whether refundable or not.

Tenants are secure when landlords can end a tenancy only on strict eviction grounds. The Scottish National party commends the work of charities and campaigners who secured additional renters’ rights from the Government in the House of Lords, and both Shelter UK and Generation Rent are happy for the Bill to pass with the Lords amendments. These rights include a short definitive list limiting default fees to charges for chasing late rents and for replacing lost keys or equivalent security devices. I noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and I hope he is reassured that welcome mechanisms are in place. The provision closes the default fee loophole so that landlords will no longer be able to charge for a whole host of spurious defaults. It is also clear to landlords that they can continue to recover damages as they do now.

I welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who, when comparing the position with the cap set in Scotland, rightly mentioned the greater availability of social housing in Scotland. He observed that a five-week cap was welcome, especially given that rents in England and Wales can be two to three times higher than those in Scotland. A five-week deposit cap is reasonable and will help renters to meet the initial fees needed to secure a home. Although Shelter originally argued for a lower cap, even it has said that it is

“pleased that the government didn’t stick at 6 weeks and we believe the 5-week cap will be a big improvement”.

That takes heed of the fact that costs are substantially higher in England, meaning that a five-week cap is much more reasonable.

Holding deposits are now illegal in Scotland, and that ought to be the case in England as well. Under the Lords amendments, if a tenancy does not go ahead, landlords or letting agents will be required to set out in writing the reasons why—they will also be required to give reasons for withholding some of a deposit—and they will have to do so within seven days of the decision not to progress with the tenancy. That will give tenants some clarity on exactly what happened to their money and ensure that there is a paper trail, which will make challenging unfair practices easier. Ultimately, both the landlord and the tenant will have more protection.

The ban on tenants fees in Scotland has made the rental sector fairer and easier to access. While I congratulate the Government on taking this positive step in the interests of people in rented accommodation, I urge the Minister to consider my points about abolishing tenant fees, while balancing protections for landlords with the rights of renters. The Bill will protect renters, many of whom do not have the luxury of owning their own home, and that ultimately is what we all want.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will try to keep my comments brief—apparently time is pressing—although there is much I would like to say about the Bill. I draw the House’s attention yet again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am in principle and in practice very supportive of the Bill—I have been right from the start—despite my business interests and despite the extreme consternation within the industry at my support. It is absolutely right that there be a firewall around a tenant’s ability to shop around when they have found a house or flat they want to rent. We are right to believe in free and competitive markets. This was not a free and competitive market, and it is right that we act in this area. It is right that landlords pay for their own tenancy agreements, inventories and referencing. I support all those things. I also want to put on the record my support for the Minister. She has done a great job on the Bill and engaged with me and other colleagues who have had concerns about some of its provisions.

I would like to touch on two things: deposits and default fees. I will begin with Lords amendments 36 and 37. To say that three weeks would be an appropriate deposit length, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) has done, shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues. She is absolutely right to want to protect tenants—everyone in this place wants to protect tenants—but to do that we must be fair to landlords as well. She asked how a longer deposit period would help tenants. It would not help tenants not to be able to find properties to rent. If we deterred landlords from entering the marketplace, as a three-week cap would do, that would not help tenants.

I speak as somebody who has been in this business for 30 years. When I started, the only thing I could find in the marketplace was a shabby, damp, dark terraced house in the middle of York. It was not like today’s marketplace; tenants now have a breadth of choice, and that is because landlords have invested because they are treated fairly. The hon. Lady wants to treat tenants fairly, as I do, but we would not be treating them fairly if our policies resulted in their being refused tenancies by landlords worried about not getting their rent, not regaining possession of a property that had had significant damage done to it or not having enough deposit left for the remedial work. Her proposals would potentially put landlords in that situation, given that many tenants use their deposit as the last month’s rent, meaning there would be nothing left.

I still have concerns about restricting the deposit length to five weeks. As we know, it is eight weeks in Scotland. The average deposit in London is five and a half to six weeks, and in the rest of England it is not far below that, so the Bill will mean a change for many landlords, and we will have to keep this under review to make sure it does not have adverse consequences for tenants—that is the principle. Landlords are happy as long as they keep their properties well maintained and the rent is paid. If that is not the case, landlords will exit the market, which is not good for the tenants the hon. Lady looks to protect.

[Bob Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the Select Committee process, one of our considerations was that, if we set a six-week deposit limit, every landlord would rapidly move to six weeks from the current UK average of between four and a half and five and a half weeks?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I do not agree with that because at the moment we have some flexibility. Under the Bill, we have no flexibility above five weeks. The trouble with that is this. I could charge a tenant five weeks, but what if they have a pet or certain other circumstances that make me less likely to want to rent it to them? I, as a landlord, will be less likely to rent to that person, under this measure, whereas with six weeks I would have some flexibility. We must make sure that this does not deter landlords from renting properties to people with pets. We do not want that, but it could happen. The Minister has promised to keep this measure under review, and I am absolutely sure that she will.

I want to touch on default fees and amendments 42 to 47. I welcome the clarification from the Minister in the letter she sent me a couple of days ago. She assured me that landlords and agents would still be able to charge for things above and beyond their existing obligations, and that is absolutely right, but the Bill itself only makes a couple of provisions on default fees, and one of those is for the replacement of keys. It sounds like a simple process, but it is possible to spend hours and hours chasing the tenant, chasing the keys, and then chasing the tenant to come and collect the keys. Someone has to pay for that work. It is not a question of the keys themselves; it is a question of the time and labour involved in their delivery.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

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

[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.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on referencing. Does he agree that it might be beneficial if the Bill were clarified so that everybody was clear about circumstances in which some of the holding deposit might be retained by the landlord or the agent in the case of somebody failing a reference check? If that were not the case, people on low incomes, for example, could be discriminated against when they apply to rent a property.

[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.

Temporary Accommodation

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

The Government have given extra money: £81 million over a two-year period for the implementation of the Act. That might not be sufficient, but we can bet our bottom dollar that the Communities and Local Government Committee, which is going to look at the implementation of the Act, will be on the Minister’s case to make sure that extra funding is provided if it is required. If local authorities do their job properly, they will make savings in the temporary accommodation budget, which should then balance up the costs of their requirements under the Act.

The greatest cause of homelessness is the end of an assured shorthold tenancy. They usually run for six months and at the end of that period families often have to move. The solution is clear: we need longer tenancies and more security of tenure for families, but also assurances to landlords that they will get paid their rent and that the tenants will behave themselves in accordance with the contract they have signed. I ask the Minister to update us on where we are going with lengthening tenancies, which would dramatically reduce homelessness at a stroke. Perhaps we can do that.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not all tenants want to sign a longer tenancy, as it ties them into something they might not want to be tied into for so long? What we need are asymmetric tenancies, so the landlord signs up to a longer period—three years, perhaps—but the tenant can have a break clause to leave earlier, which would encourage them to sign that longer tenancy agreement.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, any tenancy agreement signed would have break clauses in by mutual convenience. That would be appropriate.

Large numbers of children and young people are currently in temporary accommodation, and for far too long. What are the Government doing to make sure that children are put into permanent accommodation with their families in an appropriate way?

Litter and Fly-tipping: England

Debate between Bob Blackman and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 25th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, I think for the first time. My apologies for being slightly late and missing the introductory remarks of the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), but I was at another meeting, which I was hosting.

I am one of the two surviving members of the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament and the report we are discussing was our last one before the general election. Speaking personally, I compliment the Chair and everyone who participated in that inquiry, and all the other ones, because—as the hon. Gentleman said—we carefully considered a large amount of evidence in conflicting styles to produce a report with some comprehensive recommendations and conclusions.

We could not reach a unanimous view on one or two matters. It was not differing party views, but that some individuals in Committee had what we might describe as a more robust approach to dealing with responsibility for litter than others. I was one of them, as was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). We had a more stringent view of what we should do to people who deposit litter on our streets unnecessarily.

There is no doubt that the problems of littering and fly-tipping are extremely prevalent throughout the UK. Locally, they are probably the most important thing to affect individuals in how they feel about the place in which they live. It is clearly a local authority responsibility to ensure that the area is clean, but in many ways we should remember that it is people who deposit litter in the first place. If people do not deposit litter, the problem goes away.

I want to concentrate on some of the issues that came out of the Committee’s report and the conclusions and recommendations on what we should do for the future. Then I will go a bit further and start thinking about some of the areas on which we took evidence, but which did not make it into the report that I hope the Government will start to look at. The first point is that actions have consequences. For example, the legislation to prevent smoking in public buildings such as cafés, shops and workplaces—which I strongly supported even though I was not in Parliament when it was happening—forced smokers out on to the streets. Previously, they would have smoked at their desks or in their places of work, but they now smoke outside and deposit their litter as and when they feel like it either on the street or—most of them—in receptacles, if provided.

As the Chair of the Select Committee said, cigarette butts are the most littered item and, as they are not biodegradable, local authorities unnecessarily spend enormous amounts of money clearing them up. I have a potential solution that is not in the report but I promote it as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. The Government should increase the levy on cigarettes and tobacco products by about 5% above the rate of inflation every year, which would add about 37p to a pack of cigarettes, and all of that money should be dedicated to local authorities for two purposes. The first would be to ensure that they have the funding to take forward their duties on public health to aid smoking cessation and ensure that people do not start smoking in the first place. As the number of people smoking reduced, that would help to reduce litter. Secondly, and equally, local authorities could use part of the funds to clear up tobacco detritus, which includes not just cigarette butts but cigarette packets, cellophane and the other elements in the packs of tobacco that cause littering problems.

We also know that when people see litter around, they are less likely to feel that they should not throw litter to join that on the ground. If local authorities clear up the tobacco butts, which tend to accumulate in certain areas—particularly around stations, bus stops and other buildings—and then blow everywhere, people will be less likely to deposit other items of litter. That is a particular consequence.

On chewing gum, I am of the strong view that when people have finished chewing their gum, they deposit it where they like. In fact, only this morning I was in a Committee Room where some pleasant individual had deposited their chewing gum under the table. Why people do that I just do not know. I remember people did it at school, but surely in the mother of Parliaments—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That far back?

[Bob Blackman]

I have a very good memory. Surely that should not be the case in a Committee Room in the House of Commons. I could take you, Mr Turner, to parts of London where you will see the pavement littered with people’s chewing gum that has been splodged on the ground and it is almost impossible to remove it. It is unsightly and unhealthy, and it causes immense damage to the local street scene.

Almost the only way to remove chewing gum is steam cleaning or an equivalent. That is expensive, because it requires operatives and it is a lot of work, so few local authorities actually do anything about it. There clearly should be a tax on chewing gum and that money should be passed to local authorities for the specific purpose of clearing up the chewing gum deposited on our streets.

I also believe in the importance of educating young people. I strongly support the Clean for the Queen programme, which is an excellent programme, among others—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will promote other aspects of taking action in particular areas. That is a great thing to do. We need to educate young people in particular about the importance of not littering on their streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. McDonald’s is clearly a shining example of what should be done. Its food is all right—I would not say it was great, but lots of people love it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Bob Blackman]

Certainly if it is on the quality of products at McDonald’s.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend talks about McDonald’s being a shining example, but its products have a huge amount of packaging. If it was somehow forced or encouraged to reduce packaging, that might also help to provide a solution to the problem.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the packaging that McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants use is a matter for them, but the consequences of packaging are not limited to fast food—there are whole ranges of unnecessary packaging. However, the point is whether we should look at duties on fast food restaurants to act in the same responsible way as McDonald’s.

In my constituency we have a perennial problem with a Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-through restaurant where people drive in, park up the road, eat their chicken and throw the bones on the floor—they literally drop them out of their car windows—for local residents to suffer. Surely we can ensure that the fast food restaurants have a duty to keep their areas clear. I leave the implementation of that to the great thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we must say, “The consequences of you selling your products are the costs of clearing up.” Let us look at some solutions to that.