Holocaust Memorial Day
Carla Denyer Excerpts(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
There is a lot of evidence to back that up. The phrase passes me by, but there is a sphere of influence that Iran wanted to put in place through Iraq and Syria, with Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies to run things, and we have debated in this Chamber so many times the malign influence of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the proscription of that body that that is undoubtedly true.
We have tolerated things for too long. We tolerated streams of cars along Marylebone Road, many years ago, beeping their horns and claiming that the Jews should be murdered and the women should be raped. That did not get the crackdown that it needed. On the flipside—I will not go over this again, because we know what happened—we see West Midlands police deciding that it was far easier just to ban Israelis. Let us remember that the fans were not all Israelis; there were plenty of British citizens who are fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv who wanted to go to that football match. Rather than protecting the laws that fans who go to a country should respect, people in authority thought, “It is far easier just to stop them.” How did we get to that point? For an easy laugh, we decided, “The Jewish community is so small, and there are lots of people who hate it, so it is easier just to say, ‘You can’t come’.” That is shameful.
I have given notice that I am going to name the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). When he led the Labour party—a great and highly respected political party in our country, with much history —I am afraid that he gave a safe space to antisemitism. I praise the Prime Minister for the action he took in driving antisemitism out of the Labour party.
I look around, and I look at the agitation of the councillor I have named and of the people associating themselves with some political parties, and I say this: it is the responsibility of the leadership of the Green party to follow the example of the Labour party in how it addressed the creeping in of antisemitism into its party. I am not saying that it is the policy of the Green party to be antisemitic—I am not saying that at all—but it must address the issue far more seriously than it has done, because I see a repeat of the years from 2015 to 2019.
As I bring my comments to a close, I want to mention the actions of Leeds city council. The protests that take place in Leeds are one thing—the police give permission, and we have powers in place so that when there is hate speech and laws are broken, people can be arrested and prosecuted—but West Yorkshire police has made it clear to Leeds city council that when protesters want to use its land, it should charge them rent. The reason West Yorkshire police wants that is that it attaches an organisation to what is happening. Leeds city council has refused to do that; it is giving permission to bodies to protest, but it is not using the system, which is in place, to charge for the use of land. West Yorkshire police has said that it will be able to crack down on hate speech, violent speech and incitement to violence if it has somebody held accountable. That accountability on its own may temper what is happening.
There was a speaker called Dr Rehiana Ali—quite frankly a vile individual—at one of those rallies, and she called for the targeting of the Jewish schools in Leeds. That has nothing at all to do with the war in Gaza. Schoolchildren—let alone British citizens or anybody, quite frankly, who is not running the Israeli Government—have nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli Government. That is antisemitism as raw as it gets, but it was difficult to bring her to justice, because it was difficult for West Yorkshire police to be able to prosecute directly. I believe that the Met Police prosecuted in the end.
Let me finish on a point about Sudan, Iran and the Russians in Ukraine. The one thing that they all have in common is that they are not Jewish. That shows the level of antisemitism in this country. If we are dealing with a Jewish community, people think, “Let’s whip up a mob. Let’s say what we like. Let’s watch authorities like West Midlands police stand back and think it is easier to just stop the problem happening.” The road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on what course I can take when a Member of this House repeatedly uses speeches to misrepresent members of the public, who are not able to be present to speak for themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Lady will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. At any point, she would have been able to seek to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to be here, representing my Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituents and Plaid Cymru, to remember, first, the 6 million Jewish children, women and men murdered in the Holocaust, and also the millions more murdered in the Nazi persecution of other communities, which many other Members have mentioned.
I hand my greatest congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on his excellent introduction, and to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). We will bear in mind those words:
“history is someone else’s story; memory is my story.”
Of course, there has also been reference to our history in the United Kingdom. When we look abroad, it is very important that we know what has happened here.
As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, we remember other atrocities: the Holodomor in Ukraine, and genocide against the Armenians, and in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Forgive me, but that is not, and cannot be, an exhaustive list. There have been, there are and there will be other crimes of genocide. We cannot comfort ourselves by presuming that these events are consigned to history.
The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is the treaty that criminalises genocide. The definition is deliberately narrow:
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
We know that this is happening now, and that it will happen in the future. We need international bodies and the rules-based order to hold people to account for genocide, to define it, and to take criminal steps as necessary. We know that we need that, because we can look back and learn that from history.
In the noise and confusion of present events, we are required to call out genocidal actions, wherever and by whomever they are committed. It is our duty to be the watchdogs warning against genocide, be it in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims, in China against the Uyghur Muslims, or in Gaza against the people of Palestine.
The International Court of Justice is, as we speak, deciding on the application of the convention of genocide to Myanmar. This decision will be of immense significance in relation to forced displacement and Myanmar’s military attacks on the Rohingya. If the Court rules that mass deportation was a motive, not a defence, for genocide, that may become a precedent for a similar ruling against the Israeli Government; it is important that that is said today.
The theme for International Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Bridging Generations”. It is a reminder that the responsibility of remembrance lives on through not only survivors, but their descendants, and all of us. It is also a reminder of our fragile link to the Holocaust. A 2026 study from the Claims Conference shows that approximately 196,000 Jewish holocaust survivors are still with us. They are a living testimony to the horrors imposed by Nazi Germany, and a lesson from history to never repeat those horrors. They are also ageing. The median age of Jewish holocaust survivors is 87. By preserving the link with our past, we can ensure its retelling. It is vital that we keep listening to and sharing their testimonies, so that future generations can understand how distortions of truth can lead to the greatest crime of all: genocide.
The manipulation of truth is a vital component of genocide. The Nazis played on prejudice and stereotypes to scapegoat and dehumanise people they regarded as subhuman. The Nazi regime also practised a propaganda of deception by hiding details about the “final solution”; there were press controls to prevent the public reading statements by the allies condemning Nazi crimes. One booklet printed in 1941 glowingly reported that in occupied Poland, German authorities had put Jewish people to work, built clean hospitals, set up soup kitchens, and provided Jewish people with newspapers and vocational training. The authority of the written word and the broadcast word was abused to manipulate the truth.
Carla Denyer
The right hon. Member is giving a most powerful speech. On her point about false narratives, I wonder whether she agrees that it is so important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the actions of a state, and hate directed towards people because of their religion. It is worrying to have heard remarks in today’s debate—a debate on the Holocaust, of all things—that seemed to blur the line between those two things.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
Carla Denyer Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. She, like me, will have constituents who are subject to high, unfair ground rent charges and, in some cases, to escalating ground rent charges, particularly those that are inflation-linked. People across the country see those ground rent charges stack up to significant amounts and they will benefit from the cap once it is implemented. We estimate that the cap on ground rents will take approximately 12 months to introduce after Royal Assent, but that is all subject to parliamentary timings. If, as in the past, there is cross-party support on this issue, we can all work together to ensure that the Bill makes speedy progress.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Leaseholders in Bristol Central are being ripped off. I am disappointed that the Minister and the Government will not enforce peppercorn ground rents immediately, although a £250 cap is an improvement and the movement towards commonhold is really welcome. However, there are big problems for leaseholders that are still unaddressed. Will the Minister please commit to tackling the soaring insurance premiums that have left homes unmortgageable and leaseholders trapped, unable to sell and move in the wake of the cladding scandal?
Matthew Pennycook
I detected an unusual amount of support in that question from the hon. Lady, which I welcome. On the specific issue of insurance charges, again, there was a consultation on switching on some of the provisions in the 2024 Act that relate to insurance commissions. I am more than happy to write to her to set out further detail, but we need to bring those into force and it remains our commitment to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Carla Denyer Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.
Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.
I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.
The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.
The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.
I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.
Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.
Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Carla Denyer ExcerptsTuesday 2nd September 2025
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.
Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Denyer Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a long-standing advocate for child protection, and I pay tribute to her campaigning on these issues. We share her determination to do what is right for the victims and the survivors. We recognise that no sum of money can ever fully compensate for the horrors they have experienced. We are committed to funding efforts to tackle child sexual abuse in the future and support survivors to rebuild their lives—that is why we will make it easier for victims to make personal injury claims through the civil courts by removing the three-year time limit—and we are redoubling funding for therapeutic support services.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
This Refugee Week is an opportunity for the House to show solidarity with those fleeing war, persecution and oppression. Compassion and welcome are core British values, but for decades the Home Office has been undermining those values, as my new report “No Way Home” shows, by treating migration as a crime rather than making it work for our communities and for newcomers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister read the report and consider its recommendation to remove migration from the responsibilities of the failing Home Office?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will commit to reading the hon. Lady’s report, because it is important that we take all information on these issues. We inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain, which costs up to £9 million a day. We will end the use of hotels through suitable self-sufficient accommodation for asylum seekers, minimising the impact on local communities, and we will protect and support asylum seekers while demonstrating value for taxpayers.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Carla Denyer ExcerptsMonday 9th June 2025
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 View all Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.
Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.
In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.
Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.
In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.
While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:
“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.
She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,
“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”
Matthew Pennycook
It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 137 and 138 in my name. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery all-party parliamentary group and a proud species champion for the hen harrier. I am deeply committed to the protection and restoration of our natural world, and I have tabled the amendments to ensure there is adequate protection for protected species.
I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I support numerous amendments on affordable homes and social housing, including new clause 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would mandate that national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing, but we must ensure that that includes enough social homes, because a just society must care for both people and planet.
In defence of nature we must remember that nature is not a luxury; it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival, yet we are, as has been said, living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.
Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and seas, once vibrant with life, are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores; they are vital habitats for countless species. As they degrade, they not only release more carbon than they absorb, but drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing, and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals, or halt the alarming loss of biodiversity. Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to a changing climate. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply. The destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding, and the collapse of ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk.
My amendments require that if a protected species is identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development on that species within local recovery strategy areas. If Natural England determines that that is not possible, or there is an overriding public interest not to do that, it must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions and the threats facing specific species, this approach reflects a fundamental truth: protecting nature is not optional; it is essential. Our ecosystems are interconnected, and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human wellbeing. By embedding strong, enforceable protections for species into development planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and, importantly, our future.
Carla Denyer
Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent? The rules say that planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and immunity grounds, and not on environmental impact or on the impact on human health. Would it not be better if local authorities could make decisions on those grounds as well?
Olivia Blake
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I am sure the Minister is listening.
In a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss, because nature is not just part of the solution; it is the solution. I hope the Minister will sit down with me to discuss these points further, as the Bill enters the other House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Carla Denyer Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. Last year, as the housing emergency took hold, the SNP Government cut £200 million from the affordable housing budget. It was only as a result of Labour’s record budget settlement that they were forced to reverse those cuts, but they are still not showing the adequate ambition that we need. The SNP Government must set out a real plan to reform planning and boost house building to meet their affordable housing targets.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Rushanara Ali
I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answer to that precise question. The Renters’ Rights Bill will protect tenants from having costs passed on to them.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report
Carla Denyer Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and yes, those bodies will work together. That is what we want to see. We have granted funding and support to the Building Safety Regulator and the Health and Safety Executive to improve the support that is offered, and we will continue to do that. The bodies will have teeth. We will be looking at what further legislation we may need, but we expect action to be taken where there are issues and where things have been highlighted. When action is not taken, we expect there to be consequences.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her commitment to the inquiry’s recommendations and her commitment to systemic change. Picking up the thread from two Government Members on an oversight mechanism for state-related deaths, I was shocked to discover that it is nobody’s job to track recommendations from prevention of future deaths reports and make sure they are enacted. Those have relevance for victims of huge tragedies such as this, but just as much for individual tragedies, such as that of one of my constituents. I have a private Member’s Bill on that proposal. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me to talk about this idea in detail and how it can be enacted?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the oversight mechanism. I think I have addressed some of that and the wider issues, not just in terms of this inquiry, but all the inquiries that we have had. There have been far too many inquiries into tragedies, in the sense that these scandals and tragedies should not happening in the first place. We are committed to looking at oversight mechanisms, and I have detailed the oversight mechanisms I expect from my Department and the recommendations from Grenfell. I am happy for her to share that information with my Department, and I will take those considerations into account.
New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill
Carla Denyer ExcerptsFriday 17th January 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill 2024-26 View all New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The 1.5° global temperature limit was passed for the first time ever in 2024. This politically significant milestone is a stark reminder that we must leave no stone unturned as we make the systemic changes required to every part of our economy for a safe future. Rooftop solar is one of the easiest of the changes that we can make. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said, it is a “win-win-win” policy that helps cut people’s bills and climate emissions, and helps strengthen our energy security.
Research and development of rooftop solar is already a British success story—we are world leaders—so it is time to take the next step and maximise deployment of on-site solar generation in new builds. That is the aim of the sunshine Bill, and I am pleased to have co-sponsored this proposal to create new jobs, to drive innovation yet further, and to generate abundant amounts of energy both while the sun shines and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) pointed out, when it does not.
Making solar panels mandatory on suitable new homes is almost universally popular—other than with some major house builders. That is what I want to focus on during the short time available to me. Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. If we are to meet the Government’s targets to ramp up solar capacity—which I hope we do—we should be looking up.
Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, so we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built. For goodness’ sake, let’s build them right the first time. That is where private housing developers come into the mix. The British designer and “Grand Designs” presenter Kevin McCloud wrote last year that in 15 years’ time the average profit on each new build home has rocketed from £6,000 to £63,000. I call on Ministers to stand up to the major house builders and ensure that they pay the cost of putting solar on every suitable new roof. The organisation 100% Renewable UK has calculated that mandatory solar panels and heat pumps in new homes would add around £8,000 to the cost of a new home—an amount that decreases as installations gather speed.
Clearly, housing developers can afford that cost, and neither they nor anyone else can afford the consequences of not meeting our solar or other climate targets. The Los Angeles wildfires are on track to be among the costliest in US history, as well as the most heartbreaking, with losses already expected to exceed £109.7 billion. Failing to decarbonise at speed, in line with the climate science, will dwarf the cost of future-proofing our homes. The moral case for acting is unequivocal, and so too is the economic one.
If Ministers are worried about the risk of solar costs being passed on to homebuyers, the Government could simply stop that happening. They could also offer interest-free loans for this technology, and make it easier for retail lenders to drive rooftop deployments. Property-linked finance or green mortgages can help consumers with the capital costs of installation, as could regulation to incentivise low interest rates for green mortgages. These are all political choices that the Government could make.
The sunshine Bill is not just about solar panels but about—forgive me—shining some sunlight on who has the power. Making every home a mini power station would help rebalance that power towards communities. I therefore very much hope that the Government will today choose to back both a solar rooftop revolution and mandatory solar being included in the future homes standard, rather than choosing to protect the vested interests that are behind the vast and ultimately unsustainable house builders’ profits.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Carla Denyer Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, who I am sure will speak to her amendments, I remind Members that on Report we should consider the amendments and new clauses to the Bill; the debate is neither a rehash of Second Reading, nor a precursor to Third Reading.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I should declare that I am a member of the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now, which campaigns on renters’ rights. I thank it for its important work on this Bill, including alongside me.
The Bill is hugely welcome, but it can and should go further to fix the grave and urgent housing crisis. I therefore rise to speak to my new clause 7, on rent controls and affordability; new clause 9, on home adaptations for disabled people; and new clauses 17 and 18, on selective licencing schemes. I also want to put on the record my strong support for a number of amendments tabled by others, including the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
We have people living on the streets and in temporary accommodation because they cannot afford their rent. New clause 7 proposes a living rent body, which would set the rules that applied to the calculation of rent between tenancies. That would control rents and make them fair, considering factors such as the home’s property type, condition and size, average local incomes and so on. Local flexibility will be important. The measure is needed. The Bill gives renters a once-in-a-generation set of new rights that they have long been denied, but rent controls are still needed, because it is no help to anyone if they have a right to something that they cannot afford or access.
Once the Bill does away with section 21, we will need rent controls to prevent rogue landlords from instead hiking rents to kick people out. The Government’s changes to the tribunal system do not go far enough to protect renters from that. First, most tenants do not have the time or energy to navigate the system. Secondly, tribunal panel judges only judge whether a rent rise is fair compared with market rates, and the market rates are too high.
We have a generation of people who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and who cannot even afford their rent now. If a 21-year-old in my home city of Bristol rents a single room today at the average rate, they will have put £80,000 into their landlord’s bank account by their 30th birthday. No wonder that a third of private renters struggle with their housing costs. New clause 7 addresses the plain fact that the market is failing, with terrible costs for people who are struggling and made homeless.
There are huge economic costs, too; the Government are set to pay private landlords £70 billion of taxpayers’ money in the five years from 2021 to 2026. That is multiple times the spend on new affordable homes. Surely that is the wrong way round. We can add to that the huge annual spend on temporary accommodation, which cost councils at least £1.74 billion in 2022-23. Rent rises are far outstripping inflation. The Deposit Protection Service rental index found that rents outstripped inflation by one third in 2023. Rightmove reports show that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, and I assume that I do not have to tell the House that incomes have not grown by the same amount.
As I set out in Committee, discussion is vital if we are to avoid unintended consequences, and I do not dismiss the importance of that detailed work. At the same time, we cannot ignore the acute affordability crisis for renters. Key workers are being forced out of cities, and people are being forced out of communities that they have made their home. The average rent in my constituency of Bristol Central has hit nearly £1,800 a month.
I know what the criticisms will be, but let me remind the House that rent controls are an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, where they are a completely normal part of housing policy. It is interesting that private renters in England spend a higher proportion of their income on rent than those in any European country apart from Luxembourg and Norway. Our homes are in worse condition, too.
Rent controls are of course not a panacea. They are needed alongside a suite of housing policies, and increasing social housing supply is really important. However, the private rented sector is in an affordability crisis now, and it will take huge amounts of effort and time, even with the best will in the world, to increase the social housing supply on a scale that will impact private rents. Modelling from Generation Rent and other economists predicts that building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament will decrease the private rent burden by just over 1%.
Moving on to new clause 9, there are 16 million disabled people in the UK—more than a fifth of the population—and 19% of them live in the private rented sector. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that a shocking one in three disabled people in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation, and a Government survey reveals that an appalling 44% of private landlords have said that they will not rent to someone who requires home adaptations.
My amendment seeks to ensure that, if all tenants can put up shelves, disabled tenants should be allowed to put up grab rails. If all tenants can replace a showerhead, disabled tenants should be allowed to put in accessible washing facilities. It is not acceptable that disabled tenants must get permission for these most basic adaptations.
In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic to my concern but argued that the Equality Act 2010 already covers this issue. However, it clearly is not doing the job. Disabled people are explaining this very clearly and patiently, as did the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whom I thank.
Matthew Pennycook
I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s question and his desire for that information, but it is not for me to give a date from the Dispatch Box today; my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will provide further information on the review of that target standard early this year.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), spoke in support of their respective amendments to introduce forms of rent control. I assure each of those Members that I entirely understand their concerns about the affordability of rent generally, and specifically the potential for retaliatory no-fault economic evictions. Once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to evict tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises.
However, as we debated extensively in Committee, the Government sincerely believe that the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector could harm tenants as well as landlords by reducing supply and discouraging investment. While I fully appreciate that there is a broad spectrum of regulation that falls under the title of rent control, there is, as we debated at length in Committee, sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, and the Scottish experience since 2017, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent control. For that reason, we believe that we should proceed on the basis of the protections that the Bill provides against unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises, as well as wider action to improve affordability, not least support for the growth of the build-to-rent sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree also tabled new clause 5, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the tenancy deposit protection schemes and requirements. The contracts governing those schemes are due to end next year, and their re-procurement provides an opportunity for the Department to review their objectives and how they operate. I am more than happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that process; on that basis, I ask her to not divide the House on her new clause. I am also more than happy to ensure that she is closely involved in the development of the PRS database. We believe that there are good reasons for the detail relating to that database to be laid out in secondary legislation, rather than put in the Bill, as her amendment 7 stipulates. However, it is our clear expectation that the database will capture key information about landlords, and we recognise that there may be clear benefits in using it to collect a wider range of information, as her amendment suggests.
My hon. Friend also tabled new clause 6, which would require local authorities, if requested, to pay or guarantee the tenancy deposits of care leavers seeking to access the private rented sector. I am of the view that local authorities, rather than central Government, are best placed to assess the best way of supporting care leavers in their area. I reassure my hon. Friend that while local authorities maintain their ability to support care leavers in their areas, the Government are committed to putting in place the support that local government needs to do so effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) made a strong case for new clause 11 on acting to limit guarantors. I appreciate fully that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I understand the reasoning behind his amendment. However, I am also mindful that in some instances the use of guarantors can provide good landlords with the assurance necessary to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to access private rented accommodation. For example, there are those with a poor credit history—the kind of tenant who the shadow Minister worries our rent-in-advance amendments will harm. Having considered this issue in great detail, I ultimately concluded that limiting guarantors could inadvertently make life more difficult for certain types of renter. That said, I will keep the matter under review, and I am more than happy to engage in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about this in the weeks and months to come.
Several Opposition Members mentioned new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The Government are clear that all landlords must keep their properties in a fit state, and that there need to be robust routes of redress when they do not. However, tenants can already take their landlord to court if their home is unfit for human habitation, and if the courts find that landlords have not met their obligations, they can award compensation, as well as requiring landlords to carry out repairs. For that reason, while agreeing entirely with the objective, I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendment is unnecessary.
I will briefly refer to two amendments on the amendment paper that were not spoken to by the Members who tabled them. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) rightly called for protection from discrimination for renters who require home adaptations. The rental discrimination provisions in the Bill are specifically designed to protect victims of discrimination who may not be eligible to make a case under the Equality Act 2010, such as those who have children or are in receipt of benefits. People with a disability are already afforded protections from discrimination relating to the provision of housing or services under the Act. For that reason, we do not believe her new clause 24 is warranted, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her outside the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) tabled amendment 11 to make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman or to register with the PRS database. She will recognise that we have significantly strengthened the RRO provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. However, I took the view that it would be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the kind that her amendment covers. Instead, local authorities will be able to issue civil penalties for the initial failures in question, with the possibility of higher financial penalties and RROs if landlords fail to sign up, having been fined.
Finally, I will mention the amendments relating to home adaptations—both new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol Central, and new clause 23, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Both amendments seek to require PRS landlords to permit home disability adaptations for assured tenants when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The hon. Member for Bristol Central tabled the same amendment in Committee, and as we discussed then, the Equality Act already provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to a disabled person’s home. As I said in Committee, measures already in this Bill will improve the situation for disabled renters who request home adaptations. The abolition of section 21 notices will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, empowering tenants to request the home adaptations they need and to complain if their requests are unreasonably refused. In addition, we are establishing the new PRS ombudsman, which will have strong powers to put things right for tenants where their landlord has failed to resolve a legitimate complaint.
I must say candidly to the hon. Lady that I remain somewhat unconvinced that these amendments are the way to address this absolutely legitimate issue—I recognise the problem she identifies—and for that reason, the Government will not be able to accept them. However, I can give her the assurance that we will commit to continuing to consider what more we may need to do to ensure that requests for reasonable adjustments cannot be unreasonably refused, including those recommended by local authority home assessments. I am more happy to engage with Members across the House, and to meet her, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and other Members who have concerns on the subject, to discuss her amendment and the problem generally in more detail. I hope that, on that basis, she will consider not pressing her new clause to a vote.
Carla Denyer
If the Minister can confirm that the cross-party meeting will include the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and that it will take place before the Bill goes to the Lords, I will be happy to withdraw my new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily give the hon. Member that assurance, and I am more than happy to ensure that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee attends, as well as any other Member with an interest in this issue. It is important, and I understand the problem that the hon. Member outlines. There are reasons why we do not think the new clause is necessarily the best way to approach the issue, but I am more than happy to have a dialogue on that point.
In conclusion, today we are making targeted amendments that aim to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. In many cases, we think that the amendments pushed by hon. Members are unnecessary, because we think that the Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and those of tenants. On that basis, I hope the whole House can get behind the Bill this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Prohibition of rent in advance before lease entered into
(1) Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (permitted payments) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After paragraph 1(1) (rent is a permitted payment) insert—
“(1A) But a payment of rent is a prohibited payment if—
(a) it is payable before the tenancy is entered into, and
(b) the tenancy is an assured tenancy.
(1B) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 1A.”
(3) For sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 substitute—
“Increased rent
1A (1) If the amount of rent payable in respect of any relevant period (“P1”) is more than the amount of rent payable in respect of any later relevant period (“P2”), the additional amount payable in respect of P1 is a prohibited payment.
(2) That is subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.”
(4) After section 5 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 insert—
“Other provision about rent in advance
5A Pre-tenancy payments of rent: prohibitions
(1) A landlord must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the landlord in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the landlord in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a relevant person a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(2) A landlord must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a third party a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(3) A letting agent must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the letting agent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the letting agent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a relevant person a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(4) A letting agent must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connections with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a third party a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this section for the purpose of making provision about the descriptions of rent due in advance to which any provision of subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) applies.
For this purpose “rent due in advance” means rent due before the period for which it is payable.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5)—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may make supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision;
(c) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section “prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent” means a payment of rent that is prohibited by paragraph 1(1A) of Schedule 1.
5B Effect of a breach of section 5A
A term of an agreement between a letting agent and a relevant person which breaches section 5A is not binding on a relevant person.
Where a term of an agreement is not binding on a relevant person as a result of this section, the agreement continues, so far as practicable, to have effect in every other respect.”
(5) The Tenant Fees Act 2019 is further amended as follows—
(a) in section 6 (enforcement by local weights and measures authorities)—
(i) in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) omit “and” and after that paragraph insert—
“(ba) section 5A (pre-tenancy payments of rent: prohibitions), and”;
(ii) in subsection (3), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(b) in section 7 (enforcement by district councils), in subsection (1), for “and 2” substitute
“, 2 and 5A”;
(c) in section 8 (financial penalties), in subsection (1), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(d) in section 10 (recovery by enforcement authority of amount paid)—
(i) in subsection (1)(a), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(ii) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) But that obligation to pay the amount, or remaining part, of the prohibited payment is subject to subsection (3), unless it is a case where the payment is prohibited by paragraph 1(1A) of Schedule 1 (pre-tenancy payment of rent).”;
(iii) in subsection (3), for “But subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a prohibited payment” substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the prohibited payment”;
(e) in section 15 (recovery by relevant person of amount paid), in subsection (1)(a), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”.”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that rent in advance payable before the tenancy is entered into is a “prohibited payment” for the purposes of that Act. The new section 5A then also adds new prohibitions relating to that kind of prohibited payment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 114
[Division lists to follow.]
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 14 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.