High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I strongly welcome and support this Bill presented by my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to improve our high streets. There are four micro market towns in my constituency and one large village, and we are well aware that, particularly in the case of big unitary authorities such as Cheshire East Council, development plans need to be made in close partnership with local people and local businesses, because they know their communities best. Councils such as Cheshire East need to listen to local people, and need to listen to them more.

In 2010, a campaign to prevent the car parking charges proposed by Cheshire East Council, under a different leadership, was successful because the then leadership recognised the detrimental effect that they would have on towns such as mine. Unfortunately, just yesterday, the current leadership implemented the charges. “Controversial” is not really the word to describe what has happened. There was opposition from more than 8,000 residents in the consultation. Of 8,384 representations, 8,127 were objections, 127 were neutral, and just 130 supported the proposals. Could anyone say that Cheshire East Council is really listening to local people?

That is why the Bill matters. I would describe Cheshire East Council in this respect as tin-eared. Its plans are short-sighted, and potentially detrimental to high streets throughout my constituency. Cheshire East Council may be under funding pressures, but this is not the way to resolve them. Mike Muldoon, a hard-working and committed Sandbach councillor, contacted me this week—not for the first time—to say that such proposals would have a potentially detrimental impact on small restaurants, publicans, welfare outlets such as chemists, opticians and hairdressers, and shops and local businesses that enjoy the footfall of local people who can currently pop in and out quickly from their towns. At a demonstration in Sandbach, Councillor Muldoon spoke powerfully on my behalf about how wrong the charges would be. They would penalise local people— residents who come to shop and use facilities in their own town. They would harm small businesses, the lifeblood of our local economies, and stifle rather than strengthen the community spirit as people stayed away from local groups and events. They are also wrong because they would exacerbate parking on local side streets, to the considerable inconvenience of householders living nearby. My hon. Friend’s Bill would help such issues to be handled in a considered and planned way, rather than through what looks like a knee-jerk reaction to raise funds off the back of local people, high street customers and businesses.

I fully support the proposals in the Bill to ensure that towns have a thought-through regeneration plan which is based on local people’s priorities and put to local people for consultations that are actually listened to and meaningful. Too many consultations are held simply to tick a box to say that a consultation has happened. That has to stop. I look to the Bill to ensure that it does not happen.

I hope the Bill will also ensure that local authorities listen to local communities on other matters of concern in my constituency. One such case involves Holmes Chapel. Over many years, the parish council has produced thoughtful proposals on how to deal with traffic pressures in the centre, which are among local residents’ biggest concerns. Over those many years, I have supported the parish council and residents, and I pay tribute to all those involved in developing those thoughtful plans. It is vital that principal authorities listen to such proposals; the Bill would promote that ethos and, I hope, result in a change of approach to the dialogue that needs to take place in such cases.

Holmes Chapel Parish Council has proposed to introduce traffic-calming measures such as roadway markings and gateway features, and lower speeds on London Road, which passes through the village centre, to make it a better place for shoppers and pedestrians, many of whom are elderly. I hope that the principal council officers and others will listen and now actually implement the proposals the parish council has been making for many years.

We need to make sure that our towns and high streets are accessible. My towns of Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich and Sandbach, and the large village of Holmes Chapel, are all thriving and have many independent local businesses. We want to keep them that way, and access to our community centres is essential. To ensure better access in Sandbach, a wonderful market town, a request has been made for a pedestrian crossing on The Hill. A main thoroughfare into the town, The Hill is a busy road containing a mixture of residential properties and shops. It was thought that a crossing was planned, but I am told by constituents—I pay particular tribute to Sarah Bradley for her campaign, although she is supported by many residents in the area—that that is no longer the case and section 106 funds may be directed elsewhere. I urge the council to think again.

Bank closures are another issue, and I strongly support the campaign of our hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) to save our banks. Our local communities are being debanked, which is making it very hard for local people, especially those who are elderly and vulnerable, for charities and cash businesses to access the banking facilities they need. For example, Alsager in my constituency had two banks and two building societies but now has none. Let us ensure that we have a local voice supporting local banking.

We must ensure that towns such as Congleton remain vibrant, which is why my hon. Friend’s Bill is so important. I am sorry to hear that Boots is closing the Bridge Street branch in the centre of town, and is focusing just on the branch in the retail park outside the centre of town, which has free parking. I wonder whether the plan to close is in the light of the car parking charges that are being introduced.

I will end there and leave it to other colleagues, I hope, to support my hon. Friend’s Bill, which I very much support.

Freehold and Leasehold Reform

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr Sharma.

I support many of the comments that have been made, as I think we are all here today because we want to express a sense of deep injustice on behalf of decent, hard-working and responsible constituents. We are all aware that the situation with matters of property has prevailed for far too long without reform and is now an injustice. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. I know that the Minister is aware of the situation and has limited powers to influence the parliamentary timetable, but I implore her to go back to the Secretary of State following this debate and communicate to him the sense of injustice, which we are all communicating on behalf of our constituents.

I want to mention some of the multiple assurances on reform that the Government have given over many years, and I will focus particularly on the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) highlighted: the need for freehold management reform. I do so on behalf of residents on several estates in my constituency, but I will highlight just one: Bath Vale. I will come on to give some examples of the injustice that residents there have experienced.

We all agree that whereas long leaseholders in England and Wales have a statutory right to challenge at a first-tier tribunal unreasonable service charges and the standard of any work carried out, freeholders do not have the same right. As long ago as July 2017, the Government recognised that in a consultation paper, “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market”, saying:

“The contrast between the positions of freeholders and leaseholders can be particularly clear where a developer retains the ownership of communal areas and facilities and the responsibility for their maintenance through a managing agent, or where a developer sells on the ownership of the communal areas and facilities to a private company”,

which often then appoints another management agent. The paper continues:

“In all these cases, even though freeholders may be paying for exactly the same services as leaseholders, they do not have a right to challenge the reasonableness of service charges…which qualifying leaseholders can do.”

In October 2018, the Government published a consultation paper, entitled “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system in England”. Again, the paper announced an intention to

“create a regime for freeholders which provides that maintenance charges must be reasonably incurred and that services provided are of a reasonable standard. We will also replicate consultation requirements and obligations on the provider of services to provide information to the freeholder. Finally we will provide freeholders with the ability to challenge the reasonableness of the charges they are required to pay towards the maintenance of communal areas and facilities at the First-tier Tribunal.”

The outcome of that consultation was published in June 2019, when the Government recommitted to equal rights for freeholders, and to a right to manage for residential freeholders, as part of creating greater parity between leaseholders and residential freeholders.

Time went by, and in August 2022 I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to highlight the issue on behalf of residents of Bath Vale in Congleton. The difficulties that the residents have had started 12 years previously, when the first properties were built, and they still continue. The residents told me in 2020 that the reserves stood at several thousand pounds lower than what residents expected, and some of the charges were highly questionable—for example, a charge of £1,500 for insurance administration, which was cancelled when the residents challenged it. Similarly, water supplies had been charged for common parts, running into thousands of pounds over several years, even though there are no such water supplies. There were outstanding concerns regarding a road completion that was not adopted by the local authority, and woodland plans had not been implemented —to such a degree that the appearance of the site was affecting residents’ ability to sell.

I wrote that letter on 11 August 2022. I received a reply on 4 January 2023—not from this Minister, I accept, but from a predecessor—once again stating that

“the Government intends to legislate to ensure that freehold homeowners who pay estate rent charges have the right to challenge their reasonableness and to go to the tribunal to appoint a new management company if necessary. We will also consider introducing a Right to Manage for residential freeholders”.

That claim was repeated in a debate that took place on 20 April, and by then my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) was the Minister. She will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made an articulate case on this very issue, much as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has today. The Minister repeated the Government’s response once again:

“We know that legislation needs to be introduced…We are committed to introducing legislation to plug this gap. We intend to create a new statutory regime”.

I do not need really need to go on, but the Minister said:

“We need to end this fleecehold situation where homeowners who thought they had bought a home to live in…are subject to abuse and find these charges escalating out of all proportion”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 478.]

To close, I will repeat what I said at the start. My question is: when? I urge the Minister please to inject a sense of urgency, which there has clearly not been to date. These are decent, responsible constituents who bought their own homes never expecting to be in this situation. It is unjust. Will the Minister meet me and residents of Bath Vale? She kindly offered a meeting at that debate on 20 April, and I know she was sincere and that her own response to this issue was genuine and heartfelt. Will she now meet me and take back to the Secretary of State that this situation cannot go on and that legislative time must be provided to sort it out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point and he is absolutely right. He will hear about some of the things we are going to do to make it easier and fairer and not as expensive to challenge, and I shall to set out some more detail now.

When leaseholders challenge their landlord, we know, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that they are sometimes subject to unjustified legal costs, and we are committed to ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to them and, where appropriate, can claim the legal costs from the landlord, which certainly seems fairer than the current situation. Currently, if set out in the lease, leaseholders might be liable to pay their landlord’s legal costs regardless of the outcome of a dispute—even if they win the case. That is a classic case of heads you win, tails you lose. Also, the circumstances in which a leaseholder can claim their own legal costs from a landlord are currently very limited. That may lead to leaseholders facing higher bills than the charges being challenged in the first place and can deter leaseholders from taking their concerns to the courts or property tribunal, as the right hon. Gentleman says.

Whether on freehold estates or in leasehold or commonhold blocks, we are committed to raising professionalism and standards among all property agents, protecting consumers while defending the reputation of good agents from the actions of rogue operatives. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has been working on that issue in his constituency, and I can assure him that I will continue to work with industry—I have regular dialogue with it—on improving best practice across the sector, including on codes of practice for property owners.

Ground rent was particularly highlighted by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and we are concerned about the escalating costs of ground rents for leaseholders who still pay them. As many will know, we asked the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the potential mis-selling of homes and unfair terms in the sector and it has been successful in securing commitments benefiting over 20,000 leaseholders, including removing doubling ground rents.

Both enfranchisement and the right to manage help give leaseholders greater control. In most cases managing agents would still be used, but they would be accountable to leaseholders directly, rather than a third-party landlord, ensuring that interests are aligned. For those who want greater control over their homes, many leaseholders find the process for extending their lease or buying their freehold prohibitively expensive, complex or lacking in transparency and we equally understand that many right-to-manage applications fail on technicalities attributed to overly detailed procedure, which is why we asked the Law Commission to look into that. It has since published reports on enfranchisement, valuation and the right to manage.

To reduce the cost of enfranchisement, we are committed to tackling the problems with these existing arrangements at their root. We will abolish marriage value and cap ground rents in enfranchisement calculations, so that leaseholders who currently pay onerous ground rents do not also have to pay an onerous premium to buy their freehold. These changes will result in substantial savings for leaseholders, particularly those with less than 80 years left on their lease. These changes will also make sure that sufficient compensation is paid to landlords to reflect their legitimate property interests.

To make the process simpler and more transparent, we will introduce an online calculator to help leaseholders understand what they will pay to extend their lease or buy it out, and the Government are committed to reforms to improve access to the existing right to manage, whereby leaseholders may take over the management of their block without having to buy the freehold. We want to make the process of exercising the right to manage simpler, quicker and more flexible, and make the operation of it more effective. To that end, we are carefully considering the detail of the Law Commission’s recommendations.

To give homeowners greater control, we want to make sure that the benefits of freehold ownership are extended as far as possible. We remain committed to banning the sale of new leasehold houses so that, where possible, all new houses are provided as freehold from the outset. For flatted developments, we want to reinvigorate commonhold so that it can become a mainstream and widespread freehold alternative to leasehold for both new and existing flats. Again, we are reviewing the Law Commission’s detailed recommendations, which propose legal fixes that will make commonhold a desirable alternative in more and more settings. We have established the Commonhold Council, made up of consumer and housing industry experts, to advise the Government on how to prepare both consumers and the market for the widespread use of commonhold. Furthermore, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 is levelling the playing field for future commonholds as well as benefiting new homeowners. It removes ground rents from new leaseholds, and the associated financial incentives for developers to build leasehold over commonhold, where ground rents were never permitted.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for prompting such a vital debate and everybody for their contributions, and I am pleased that we have been able to discuss these issues properly. We plan to introduce reforms in the King’s Speech, which will take place in the autumn, so the reforms should take place within this Parliament. I recognise that every single Member would like a more detailed timeline, but I will continue to have these discussions, as Members have implored, both with my colleagues in the Department and with those across other channels who are responsible for tabling legislation.

[Fiona Bruce]

Would the Minister be willing to have a discussion with the residents I have referred to in more than one debate? I would be very grateful.

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course. I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend’s residents. I implore her to contact my office so that we can arrange that as soon as we can.

I hope this debate has demonstrated to the House, leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates across the country our continued commitment to reform and to making things better. I am grateful to Members across the House, campaign groups and members of the public for highlighting the difficulties that homeowners face. As I am sure Members can appreciate, this is a significant undertaking, and I look forward to coming to the House with more detail as soon as I am able to.

Freehold Management: Service Charges

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the House for being able to call this debate to draw attention to the problems with the current framework of legislation and regulation covering estate management and service charges that are placed on freeholders. I do so on behalf of the thousands of homeowners in my constituency who are being charged for services that ordinarily might be covered by their council taxes, who frequently are not given easy access to the scale of charges they face and who have inferior rights of legal challenge or redress when something goes wrong. I do so to support the efforts of local councillors, especially Councillor Jim Weir, from Great Denham, in my constituency, who has done so much to draw attention to these issues, and to support the efforts of those in local resident associations, such as Tom Middleton, the chair of the New Cardington residents’ association. He has doggedly pursued estate management companies to get clarity and promote accountability. I also do so on behalf of 30 other Conservative colleagues who cannot be here today but joined me in writing to the Prime Minister to urge action. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her thoughtfulness in listening to the concerns I have raised with her ahead of this debate. I look forward to her response to some of the points I wish to make.

Let me set out a bit of the background. Freehold service charges can cover the provision of a variety of services on housing estates, such as the upkeep of play areas, communal gardens, unadopted roads and communal parking areas, such as parking courts. The requirement to make a financial contribution is most usually defined in the deed of transfer when the property is first sold by the developer. Alternatively, a liability might arise as a result of an estate rent charge that forms part of a purchase contract. The developer then usually enters a contract with a management company to organise the necessary work on the estate and to recover costs from homeowners. Sometimes the developer will set up a residents’ management company to take ownership of the communal areas. Where that happens, the residents’ management company can appoint a management company to work on its behalf. That may sound a little confusing, as it did to me as I said it. I was surprised to learn that in what one might think would be a single housing development area there can be 10, 20 or 30 individual companies handling small areas, such as little parts of roads or smaller communal areas. For my constituents, that is a confusing issue if they ever want to follow up with an inquiry. I am going to talk about some of those problems in this debate.

Based on my research, what is clear to me is that after the completion of a purchase these costs to homeowners can often increase significantly; that there is no clear or effective accountability; and that these arrangements have created a mini-industry of companies providing services of varying quality and charging often high fees, many of which relate to administration rather than to the services provided themselves. For the homeowner affected by estate management charges, these raise some pertinent issues that I know the Government are considering.

First, the notification to home buyers of their future liability for charges is not made clearly. Secondly, when bills arrive, it is often unclear what the charges relate to or why they are being applied to a particular property. Thirdly, it is often difficult for residents to obtain information about the charges, to challenge their reasonableness or to effect change when the work is being completed inadequately. Fourthly, the regulation or oversight of the practices of the management companies is very weak, creating problems for homeowners and, increasingly, creating reputational damage to many of our major housing developers, which it would be wise to address now.

It is also clear to me that the voice of homeowners is absent at a crucial stage. It is right at the start, while planning approval is going on, when the developer and the local planning authority determine who is responsible for the costs to maintain shared areas in the proposed development. In the room, there is the local authority planning authority and the developer. The people not in the room are the homeowners who will subsequently have to pay those charges. That structure means that the incentives are stacked too heavily for the developer and the local authority to stick the bill to those not represented—the homeowners themselves.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an issue that affects many of my constituents. Does he agree that another issue is that, when the local authority is in the room at the start of a development, there should be some way of agreeing a time-bound point at which that local authority takes over, making certain the services or the facilities within some of these developments, otherwise a situation can arise whereby the residents can be responsible, for years sometimes, for covering the costs through service charges that should actually be taken over by the local authority?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend, with her great expertise in these and other matters, is absolutely right. This question of the timeframes in which certain common services might be adopted can create a number of concerns. This issue was raised for me by Councillor Phillipa Martin-Moran-Bryant, who has a number of residents affected by this issue. There is also the period of time that it can take for an estate management company to be handed over to the residents themselves. There is a double source of risk of delay, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should consider whether there is a reasonableness in terms of the time limit that could be put in place.

[Fiona Bruce]

There is also the situation of some homeowners buying early on in a development and then finding that they are bearing charges for the subsequent development of the site or the maintenance of the site during its development, which, realistically and fairly speaking, should be borne by the developer itself.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I know the Minister will be listening, because she has been listening to all the points that I have previously made on these issues.

Just to cap the concerns, at the end of it, a person might want to sell their property. What we find increasingly is that, as they are going through the sales process, they hit a snag, because the estate management company is saying, “You haven’t paid charges.” Sometimes, they are charges that the homeowner was not even aware that they were liable for. This is the reality for many homeowners living in areas with estate management charges: they have no voice, no explanations, no transparency, no redress and, potentially, no ability to move house.

Let me give a couple of specific examples to bring those points to light for the Minister—they will largely be from my constituency, but they occur in many places. I return to Councillor Jim Weir in Great Denham, who conducted a survey to which 300 residents replied, and which identified multiple instances of excessive administrative fees. A number of my local councillors have done the same.

In one scheme, the anticipated maintenance work to be carried out and the charges for electricity comprised 30% of the total charge to the residents, while 70% of the charge was fees, reserves and overheads. In a second scheme in his ward, the anticipated maintenance was 10% of the total charge, with 90% of the charge going on fees, reserves and overheads. In a third scheme, the estate manager had just one job: the management of seven lamp posts. Jim and his team compared the costs charged per lamp post with the standard cost of the local council for doing the same job and found that the management agent is charging twice the standard rate.

When residents challenged the estate management company to see the electricity bills, they were informed that the bills could not be shared electronically and someone would have to visit the offices of the agent 170 miles away if they wanted to inspect them. One good resident said, “I’m up for that,” and that he would go and have a look. He arranged an appointment, which got cancelled and cancelled and cancelled. After more pressure from residents, the company finally admitted they did not have any electricity bills to show. No individual should have to go through that level of turmoil to try to find out something so simple about why they are being charged something in their own area. It is ludicrous.

I have a couple more examples from New Cardington of other issues relating to handovers and conflict of interest. Tom Middleton, the chair of the New Cardington Residents Association, wrote to me:

“Residential management companies (RMC) are set up by developers to look after the various open spaces not placed for adoption. The directors of the RMC are usually senior directors at the developer. This means the managing agent is effectively the developer’s client until handover. This is usually prolonged. Here in New Cardington the RMC was incorporated in July 2010, 13 years later the developers are only NOW starting the handover process. This means for 13 years residents have paid a service to an agent of some description but over which they have had no control.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has a similar problem in the Silverwoods development in Kidderminster. He cannot be here today, but he wrote to tell me:

“Multiple iterations of the estate management company has resulted in absolute opaqueness in accounting and use of funds generated, whilst failure to enforce planning conditions by Wyre Forest District Council has passed on a financial burden to rectify failures onto residents. This is not good enough.”

There is a further point about conflict of interest that, on balance, I want to make. The Association of Residential Managing Agents has 10 standards in its consumer charter, the seventh of which is, “Avoid conflicts of interest”. Concerns have been raised by the New Cardington Residents Association that their estate management company, RMG, has created a conflict of interest by establishing a wholly owned subsidiary, Osterna Ltd, to conduct annual fire risk assessment processes.

I have kindly been copied in to a letter from RMG that explains its rationale, and I am in no way asserting that there is any wrongdoing here, but it clearly changes the arm’s length nature of an estate management company hiring services if some regular services, such as fire risk assessments, go untendered to related companies. Will the Minister write to companies reminding them of their obligations and calling for greater accountability and transparency?

I will canter quickly through the history of Government reviews. In July 2017, there was a consultation on tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market. In December 2017, the Government said that they would legislate to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of communal areas and facilities on a private or mixed-use estate can access equivalent rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of service charges. In October 2018, the Government confirmed their intention to

“replicate consultation requirements and obligations on the provider of services to provide information to the freeholder.”

In June 2019, the Government committed to equal rights for freeholders and the right to manage for freeholders. In December 2021, the then Minister told the House:

“The Government also intends to give freeholders on private and mixed tenure estates equivalent rights to leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of estate rentcharges, as well as a right to apply to the First-tier Tribunal to appoint a new manager to manage the provision of services. In addition, we will ensure that where a freeholder pays a rentcharge, the rentcharge owner is not able to take possession or grant a lease on the property where the rentcharge remains unpaid for a short period of time. We will translate these measures into law when parliamentary time allows.”

May I ask the Minister to confirm, first, that there has been no dilution of those commitments by the Government, and secondly, that it is the Department’s desire to include this long-promised legislative change in the next session of Parliament? I say “Department” because, of course, it is the Prime Minister who has to balance the multiple claims on parliamentary time. That is why I—along with thirty of my colleagues—wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to include the legislation in the King’s Speech.

The Prime Minister kindly wrote back and included the following comments:

“The Government believes that it should be made clear to potential purchasers what the financial arrangements and their responsibilities are for the upkeep of communal areas. It is also important that we hold these estate management companies more accountable on how they perform and how homeowners’ money is spent.”

He went on:

“These changes will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows, and I will carefully consider your call for it to form part of our legislative session for the next Parliamentary session.”

I put on the record that I am very grateful that the Prime Minister wrote back. I hope that he understands the purpose of this debate and the calls by 30 of my Conservative colleagues, including the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It is the time for the Prime Minister to take the action that has been promised for so long. We know that the issues preceded his time, but he has a great capacity for understanding problems and finding solutions. We are close—I think the Minister will be clear that the Department is ready to move—and I hope that the Prime Minister will take further consideration and action to help my constituents and those in many other places around the country.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to respond to my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on this vital matter.

I pay huge tribute to hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his persistence on this particular issue and for his convening power in gathering 30 of our colleagues, which is no mean feat, regardless of the issue. He has made an incredibly compelling speech, every word of which the Government—and certainly the Department for Levelling Up—agree with, as I will set out in the time that remains. I also pay tribute to the individuals and groups he has worked with and about whom he has taken time to speak to me. He has explained to me the impact on the lives of his constituents, mentioned Tom Middleton of the residents’ association, and set out the excellent work that Councillor Jim Weir and many other councillors in the area have done. When my hon. Friend told me the story of the seven lampposts, I found it absolutely appalling and shocking that that kind of abusive practice can go on in this day and age. It has to stop, and we are absolutely committed to putting into practice the actions that will bring a stop to it.

I do not need to deliver most of my speech because my hon. Friend has done an excellent job of setting out the landscape of the problem and what needs to happen, so I will skip straight to what we will do to fix this. We know that legislation needs to be introduced. He challenged me on the timetable for that, and I will respond. We are committed to introducing legislation to plug this gap. We intend to create a new statutory regime for freehold homeowners based on the rights that leaseholders have, which would ensure that estate management charges must be reasonably incurred, that services provided are of an acceptable standard and that there is a right to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the property tribunal. We need to end this fleecehold situation where homeowners who thought they had bought a home to live in—their own piece of property, with their own front door—are subject to abuse and find these charges escalating out of all proportion to the services provided.

We will also give a right to change the provider of maintenance services by applying to the tribunal for the appointment of a manager. That can be useful if the homeowner is dissatisfied with the service they are receiving and there is significant failure by the estate management provider to meet its obligations. We will take action to tackle these unreasonable costs and the lack of performance and service delivery by these companies. We will go further in time and will consider how to introduce a right to manage for freehold home- owners once we have considered the complexities of the Law Commission’s report.

I turn to the questions that my hon. Friend asked. He asked whether I would meet him and other concerned colleagues to discuss the detail of these issues. I am aware that we only have a short time today, and he has raised many complex issues. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further. That is important, because this is a big change, and we are tackling many areas of law.

My hon. Friend rightly challenged me on the numerous commitments made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box to ensure that these measures are introduced. Clearly, it is beyond my pay grade to pre-empt what the King’s Speech will contain, but my hon. Friend rightly pointed to not only the letter from the Prime Minister but repeated assurances from myself, which I will repeat today, and from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that this issue is top of the list of priorities for our Department. We take it very seriously, and we fully intend to bring forward legislation to implement the changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is the plan, and we remain committed to it.

My hon. Friend asked me whether there will be any dilution of the current commitments. The straight answer is no. We remain committed to addressing all the imbalance facing freehold homeowners, and we will legislate so that freehold homeowners have the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges and to go to the tribunal to appoint a new management company.

My hon. Friend asked me when this legislation will be introduced. Of course, we always want to bring in changes that will make a difference to people when this is having an impact on their household budgets. We all share the desire to bring legislation in as soon as possible. As soon as the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, we will strain every sinew to get these changes on to the statute book, so that people can use them—that is what we all want to see.

My hon. Friend referenced the CMA market study into house building. He will be reassured to know that this study does not in any way dilute the Government’s commitments; in fact, it complements them, and it might suggest other actions for the Government. As he said, there are many aspects of this situation and many problems that we need to fix.

My hon. Friend asked me whether we can write to companies reminding them of their obligations and calling for accountability and transparency. They need to know that change is coming, and I want to reiterate that today from the Dispatch Box. As the Minister responsible for this, I receive many pieces of correspondence from colleagues across the House and people across the country. The changes proposed by the Government are much needed. These estate management companies should be on notice, and I repeat that today. The Government have been very clear that all charges should be reasonable and clearly communicated, and we are wholly committed to strengthening freeholders’ rights on these estates.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am very encouraged by what the Minister is saying. Actually, some charges, rather than being reasonable, should be not there at all. Let us take play areas as an example. Will the Minister consider whether local authorities should take over a play area if, for example, it has been created as a result of an agreement with the developer? Such play areas are used not just by the residents whose properties the green area fronts but by anyone in the local area, freely. Will the Minister discuss with local authorities and the Local Government Association how to prevent situations where residents are completely unfairly burdened, and ensure that local services are taken over by local authorities where they should be?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one that I am familiar with from my constituency. It is an issue that I am sure we have all faced in one form or another, and it causes considerable frustration, annoyance and anger among local residents who have bought those properties and expect to have those facilities there. They have paid good money for the houses that they have moved into.

I will certainly discuss that issue with my hon. Friend further; there are a number of legal frameworks that we may be able to use to assist with that. I will commit to writing to her with a bit more detail on that point, because I fear that I will not be able to do it justice in the Chamber, but we will introduce secondary legislation on the back of the Bill that we intend to introduce that will bring a considerable advance in the amount of clarity that already exists pertaining to these matters and many others.

To revert to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and his call for us to write to all the management companies, much as that would appear to be a sensible approach, unfortunately, it would prove rather more difficult in practice. It is very difficult to track down where all these companies are, their addresses, and who actually runs them. What I can certainly commit to do, though, is put information on gov.uk making it very clear to those companies what the obligations on them should be.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close. I finish by thanking again my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for all the work he has done with his colleagues; my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her really useful contributions; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), my neighbour in Worcestershire, who has also contributed to the research. I reiterate that it should always be clear to potential homebuyers what the arrangements are, but we know that very often, it is not; that is the root cause of some of the problems that we have faced. We think it is pure justice that homeowners must have effective ways to get things put right when they have a problem with their housing. That is why we remain wholeheartedly committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to empower those freehold homeowners so that they can better hold the estate management company to account. I thank the whole House for the time it has taken to consider these important matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Christianity in Society

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Christianity in society.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

The Church and Christianity, and the interpretation of the Bible, have been in the news more than normal as of late. Recently, the census showed that fewer people identify as Christian. The Church of England has been debating well-known ethical teaching that is now considered controversial in a liberal, modern United Kingdom. Many institutions seem to want to erase any references to their Christian heritage. The London School of Economics recently stated that it would be dropping Easter, Christmas and Michaelmas from its academic calendar. This Easter, the giant bunny will no doubt return to my Westminster hotel lobby, but I am sure there will be no sign of a cross.

In conversations everywhere, the Lord’s name is taken in vain and no one bats an eyelid. Rainbows were long understood to represent God’s promise to never again flood the Earth, but I wonder how many people are even aware of that now. Religious literacy has been declining for decades. Every Christmas and Easter, the newspapers will report some new poll showing that fewer and fewer people understand even the most basic claims of the Christian faith, and the basic historical and legal facts about our Christian heritage and constitution are receding from our collective cultural understanding. The question is, does it matter? I want to suggest two reasons why it does: first, for constitutional and cultural reasons; and secondly, from a faith point of view.

Throughout British history, the Christian Church has pioneered some of the most profound and positive social changes ever to bless these islands. Here, as in many other parts of the world, Christians led the way with universal education and healthcare. As the historian Tom Holland and many others have recognised, so many of the laws and values that we now take for granted have their roots firmly in the Christian faith. It was the biblical idea of God as the ultimate law giver that underpinned the Magna Carta, providing the foundation stone of individual freedom and establishing the principle that no one—not even the King—is above the law.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I commend him for bringing this subject to the House, especially at Easter time. He speaks of our Christian heritage. We stand here in the House of Commons, where, for many of us, William Wilberforce is the most esteemed parliamentarian to have graced these Benches. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was Wilberforce’s Christian faith that motivated him to battle for years—even decades—to challenge the heinous industry of individual slavery and to see the abolition of that trade in his generation?

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her continued support; I was actually going to mention William Wilberforce in my next sentence.

It was the Christian faith that moved John Locke to develop our understanding of religious toleration. It was the Christian faith that compelled William Wilberforce, who my hon. Friend has just mentioned, to fight the slave trade, set up homes for the elderly and establish the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was the Christian faith that moved Lord Shaftesbury to campaign for better working conditions and provisions for the mentally ill. It was Christianity that inspired Hannah More to set up free schools for the poor. Again, it was Christianity that prompted Josiah Wedgwood to revolutionise working conditions in his factories. It was the Christian faith that led Elizabeth Fry to campaign for prison reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. As my speech goes on, I will of course make that point.

Many of our laws are based around the tablets given to Moses on Mount Sinai and the ethical teaching of the Old and New Testaments. The great biblical institution of marriage is recognised by social science for the emotional and material blessing it brings to spouses and their children. The Christian faith is woven into the social and physical fabric of the United Kingdom. The beautiful and symbolic church buildings across this land, with their tall steeples reaching for the heavens, are part of our history and culture, not just our skyline.

The place in which we stand took its name from the noble abbey church of St Peter’s—the minster in the west. The bishops play their part in the House of Lords, reflecting hundreds of years of having an established Church. Prayers are said every day in the Chambers of both Houses. Above each entrance to Central Lobby, the patron saints from all four parts of our United Kingdom are celebrated in murals. The tiled floor contains the words of psalm 127:

“Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain.”

At the coronation, His Majesty the King will be anointed in the name of God as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, as well as Head of State. St Edward’s crown, which will be placed on his head, contains a cross and orb symbolising the King and our world under the authority of God. Many people who do not have a personal faith in Christ still value this history and the benefits it has given us.

Of course, some want to rewrite history, but everywhere we look we see our Christian heritage, and nowhere more than in this place. It matters to our national life; it is the air we breathe. Although many deride and misrepresent it, the reality is that it has been a source of great benefit. Much of what makes Britain great stems from that heritage, and many others from around the world recognise that. Why do we not? We should be proud of our Christian history and values. It would be a constitutional disaster to try to erase it—even worse, it would be a spiritual disaster.

That brings me to the main reason why we should cherish the Christian faith, because I, like many others, believe it is true. Let me speak of the basics of Christianity. The foundational premise of the gospel is that we are all sinners. We do wrong: wrong against God and wrong against one another, and we know it—I know it. I am not proud of it, but it is true. If we were all really truthful with ourselves, we would all admit that we are not the good people we like to think we are. We might not all be out stealing and assaulting people; however, I am sure we have all said things that we wish we had not said and done things we wish we had not done. We have been unkind instead of kind and greedy instead of generous. We have broken promises instead of keeping them. We have told lies instead of telling the truth. We have done the things as parents or partners that we know we should not have.

People in the Old Testament covered their sins with sacrifices—their prized lamb or goat sacrificed to God. However, God knew we would never be able to meet his hopes for our lives, which is why the events of Easter happened. John 3:16, probably the most famous verse in the Bible, says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his…only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

At Christmas, we celebrate Christ’s birth. He came into the world as a unique person—one who was fully human like us, but also divine and therefore perfect and sinless. On Good Friday, we remember the cross where Jesus was sacrificed to cover our sins. On Easter Sunday, we celebrate the fact that he rose from the dead to sit at the right-hand side of God, defeating death for the sake of everyone who believes in him. The Christians who have had such a great influence on the life of this nation knew those things to be true because they are written in the pages of the world’s best-selling book, the Holy Bible. Those of us who believe in that book might not perfectly understand it—sadly, we might even sometimes misuse it—but it is still true and still perfect, and with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, anyone can understand it.

Christianity is not a religion only open to clever people. In fact, one reason why the Christian faith is sometimes derided and rejected is that it is disproportionately a religion for the kind of people that elites look down on—the poor, the weak, the uneducated. But as the Bible itself says, God uses the weak “to shame the strong”. The Bible is a book of truth, love and grace—a book written by God through his chosen people; a book that gives someone like me the promise of eternal life and wise guidance about how to be a better person.

I became a Christian in my mid-30s. I knew of Christ many years before, but never thought I was good enough, and I was right—I wasn’t. The Bible is shockingly plain that we cannot make ourselves good enough for God, no matter how many good deeds we try to do. But that is the beauty of Christianity and the Easter story. Forgiveness is given to us by God, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This good news is offered to everyone, everywhere. All our sins past and present are forgiven once we make that decision.

It is a wonderful feeling to be forgiven, blessed and certain of the promise of eternal life. It is wonderful knowing that my maker is with me at all times, right here, right now. He is with me in my triumphs—there have been a few—but, more importantly, in the dark times too. I could not do this job without my faith. I would have had some lonely walks over Westminster bridge to my hotel after a long and difficult day without God at my side.

I am not sure how this speech will be received. Some people are very hostile to the idea of Christian politicians, so let me try to reassure them. The two greatest instructions are taught in Luke 10:27. Jesus said:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbour as yourself.”

He said that my neighbour is everyone in here, from all parties, and everyone out there too. That does not mean that I have to agree with them—thank goodness for that—but it does mean that I must love them.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend says that he is not sure how his speech will be received. I have been in this House for about 13 years and I have never been more moved when listening to a speech. He echoes so much of my own experience. I became a Christian when I was 27, and it changed my life. It gave my life meaning and purpose. As he says, it is wonderful to know that we are so loved by someone who was willing even to send his son to die on a cross, and would have done so had we been the only person in the world.

I want to put on the record my appreciation of my hon. Friend’s bravery in speaking so boldly and clearly about his faith. I believe it echoes the faith of many others in this place and across this country. It humbles me to consider that perhaps over 13 years I should have been bolder and braver, but I thank him for what he has done and said today.

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is one of the boldest and bravest people I know here. I thank her very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for my late arrival; I was delayed in the Chamber. I congratulate him on securing a debate on this subject, which is extremely important and too often neglected. His efforts to highlight the value to our society of faith, and Christian faith in particular, are to be commended.

It can often seem that the Christian faith is in retreat, and certainly recent statistics about church attendance seem to support that, but that is nothing new for the Christian Church. Particularly concerning is the lack of knowledge about the Christian faith, which was in part why, along with my hon. Friend, I recently held a debate in this Chamber about religious education. I hope that the House will allow me to reflect on my upbringing.

Being a child of the 1950s, like many I attended Sunday school. Thinking back to my school days at Welholme Junior School in Grimsby, I would say that around half our class, which at that time had about 35 pupils, regularly attended Sunday school—many of them at my church, All Saints’ in Grimsby, or the neighbouring Methodist church, which at that time had a thriving congregation. At Sunday school, we were of course introduced to the basic tenets of the faith. Importantly, that continued with daily assemblies at school, and I still recall some of the prayers used by my headteacher at Welholme and, later, at Havelock School in Grimsby.

Sadly, too many schools these days neglect the religious aspect of education. Of course, the approach taken by schools, and indeed by our churches, has had to evolve, but I wonder how many headteachers take the approach of the head at my daughter’s school. I recall attending a parents evening in what would have been the mid-1990s where, when questioned about religious education, he said that he did not regard the school’s role as to indoctrinate children, but to bring them to the threshold of faith—if only that were the case today.

Without knowledge of the Christian faith—a faith whose teachings form the basis of our laws and so many other foundations of our society—it is not possible to appreciate our history, culture and so much more. It is part of the glue that holds our society together. So many of our schools have their roots in the churches that established schools and charitable institutions.

I am a worshipping member of the Church of England. Like many in its congregation up and down the country, I am often frustrated and feel that it has lost its way. Of course, it should do good works—supporting schools and so on, as I mentioned—but I sometimes think that it is neglecting what must surely be its core job: spreading the gospel. It needs to kick into touch the endless, tortuous debates about sexuality and comments on the minutiae of Government policy and start getting people into its churches to hear a clear Christian message.

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely agree that the core message of the Church has to be sharing the gospel of Christ and the good news, as we have heard today. Does my hon. Friend agree that many Christians across the country are worried about sharing their faith and even publicly quoting from the Bible because of what the law says? In fact, by law, religion or belief is a protected characteristic, as acknowledged by the Equality Act 2010. An expression of faith should not be given any less respect than any other protected characteristic. There is not a hierarchy, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is often how Christians feel? Christians are not asking for any special privilege when expressing their faith—they are just asking not to be at a disadvantage when they express their views and beliefs compared with other groups in society.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree. There is a reluctance among the public to be open about their faith because they genuinely fear potential repercussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this debate on Christianity in society and on his very personal and passionate speech. My hon. Friend is a committed champion for his area and a committed advocate of the role of Christianity in our communities. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for their thoughtful and reflective contributions. I also thank the Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for their profound reflections.

To begin with, let me emphasise the importance of the Church as an essential pillar of society. It has been, and will always be, a bedrock of support for Christians, and it will always be an important institution in Britain. Our country has been built on Christian values, and the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are the two established Churches in the UK. As we break for Easter recess, it is important to remember and celebrate the role of the Christian Church in our history, culture and values. It not only plays an important constitutional role in our national life, but has been instrumental in fostering our values as a society—values of compassion, tolerance and respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley alluded to, love thy neighbour.

At Easter time, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection signifies the promise of redemption and rebirth and the forgiveness of sin. In my constituency of Kensington, I have the great privilege of having a very active Christian community. My constituency has some of the major iconic churches in London: the Brompton Oratory; Holy Trinity Brompton; St Columba’s, Church of Scotland; St Mary Abbots; the Notting Hill Methodist Church; and Kensington United Reform Church. I am proud to have that vibrant community.

Faith in general is a vital part of people’s identities and communities. The Government fully support the invaluable work being done by people around the country who are inspired by their faith. Values such as democracy, respect for others and regard for the rule of law are supported by the overwhelming majority of people in this country. They have evolved over time to become an integral part of life in Britain today. Faith can guide the moral outlook of many. It inspires great numbers of people to public service and to helping those in greatest need. Christian values, like values found in other great faiths, are those of humanity and service to others.

The Church of England, as has been mentioned, holds a unique place in our society. As senior members of the established Church of England, 26 bishops sit as individual Lords Spiritual and are impartial Members of the House of Lords. The monarchy also plays an important constitutional and religious role in the UK, with the sovereign acting as Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. As we approach the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III, there are a number of statutes that govern the declarations and oaths that must be made by a new monarch. The oaths represent an important part of our history and traditions, symbolising the role and duties of the sovereign. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight into the work of the upper House. While they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for people of all faiths.

[Fiona Bruce]

The Minister has spoken about the monarch publicly declaring his faith on oath. Can the Government give some clear guidance on the rights and freedoms of others in our society—Christians and those of other faiths—to publicly express their faith? That right exists, but there is an enormous amount of confusion about it—indeed, in some cases, even fear. The right clearly exists, subject to some limited caveats, such as not inciting violence.

Can we also see a review of the guidelines that the police work to when they arrest or charge people on the grounds, for example, of an alleged hate crime? Again, there is a lot of confusion there. Often, the cases we hear of seem to progress and then there is clearly no case to answer. Finally, can we make it absolutely clear that no one should be arrested simply for silently praying?

[Felicity Buchan]

Let me address the first question. No one should be in fear of professing their faith, regardless of which faith they belong to. That is very important. I am afraid guidance to the police falls outside my jurisdiction—it is a matter for the Home Office—so I will defer on that point, but I feel strongly that everyone should be able to declare their faith.

[Fiona Bruce]

Perhaps the Minister will pass that request on, because it is a very real one, particularly following the recent passage of the clause in the Public Order Bill on buffer zones.

[Felicity Buchan]

I am happy to pass on my hon. Friend’s comments.

The latest census tells us that the number of Christians living in this country has decreased; however, Christianity remains the most prominent religion. Christianity has shaped this country’s history, and we should recognise and celebrate that. We can all be proud of our Christian heritage and values. My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Don Valley both mentioned William Wilberforce. It was his Christian faith that led to the abolition of slavery. It was his resolute Christian faith that prompted him to become interested in social reform, including the improvement of factory conditions in Britain. He firmly believed that the revitalisation of the Church and individual Christian observance would lead to a harmonious model society.

In every city, town and village in the UK, we see the positive impact and vital contributions that Christianity, Christians and churches make to our society, as, indeed, other faiths do too. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes mentioned the importance of Christian schools and faith schools; just before coming to the Chamber, I was with one of the schools in my constituency, All Saints Catholic College in north Kensington, which I am delighted to say is an outstanding school. There is no question but that Christian schools play an important role.

Churches are often centres of community support and provide a range of services, including after-school care, youth clubs, financial advice and addiction support, to name but a few. They often provide a safety net for those in need, running, for example, homeless shelters, food banks and warm hubs. As the Minister for homelessness, I want to put on the record my personal thanks for everything that churches do in support of the homeless. We recently distributed a £10 million night shelter transformation fund, with a specific focus on voluntary and faith groups.

The hon. Member for Luton North asked what the Government are doing to support charities. I am delighted that the Budget included £100 million specifically to support charities, and homeless and domestic abuse charities will be beneficiaries of that. We are conscious that there are inflationary pressures in the economy and that charities need more support, so I was delighted that the Chancellor made £100 million available. That comes on top of the huge amount of support that the Government have given to those facing cost of living pressures, with £37 billion in the last Budget and a further £26 billion in the autumn statement. We are, in effect, paying half of everyone’s energy bills at the moment; the average household is receiving £1,500 in support for its energy bills.

The pastoral impact of the Church extends further into our society with the provision of chaplaincy across the public sector, including in prisons, hospitals and the armed forces. The Government recognise and support the importance of faith. My colleague Baroness Scott, the Minister for faith, continues to champion the brilliant work of our faith communities up and down the country. She regularly meets leaders from across faith groups in our country.

We were the first Government to commission a wide-ranging review of how the Government engage with faith. As Members may be aware, the independent faith engagement adviser, Colin Bloom, will soon publish his review. He will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about how the Government can celebrate the contribution of faith groups and their positive role in society, while also tackling harmful practices. There was an unprecedented number of responses—21,000—to the review’s public call for evidence. That demonstrates the high level of interest in religion and faith across our society. We will carefully consider Colin Bloom’s recommendations when the report is published.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

This week, holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg spoke movingly in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the “hell on earth” he experienced under the Nazis. The tragedy is that there have been a catalogue of horrors since the Nazis perpetrated their genocidal acts. In the ’70s there was Pol Pot’s terror in Cambodia. In the ’80s there was Saddam Hussein’s desecration of Kurds in Iraq. In the ’90s there were attempts to systematically exterminate Tutsis in Rwanda, while Bosnian non-Serbs suffered a similar fate.

There have been atrocities inflicted across the world, including in Asia, the middle east, Africa and Europe, and on victims from a range of religions and races—Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian and others. Still, in the 21st century, we see further atrocities where elements of the definition of genocide are present, including targeting of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, and of the Hazaras in Afghanistan. In my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I have heard many survivors speak of unspeakable suffering. They relay the same message as survivors of the holocaust: we must not only call out evil, but act to prevent it from happening again.

One way we can act is by formally recognising the genocide against the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq and Syria by Daesh, as the lower house in Germany did just last week. Recognition of genocide is one of the most significant things we can do as part of the UK’s atrocity prevention strategy. Another is to identify where there is risk of genocide. We must equip our diplomatic teams across the world to spot the early warning signs where a nation is at risk of genocide. The UK can be a leader among our allies and partners in setting up early warning mechanisms, and in using our diplomatic reach—a reach that is still much regarded internationally, as I know from my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy—to resolve disputes and tensions where we are able to do so.

The International Development Committee’s recent report, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world” sets out a road map for the Government to follow. I welcome the Government’s positive response, not least the development of the mass atrocity prevention hub, and look forward to further progress to fulfil our manifesto commitment to implement the Truro review fully, including recommendation 7, which states:

“Ensure that there are mechanisms in place to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide, through activities such as setting up early warning mechanisms to identify countries at risk of atrocities, diplomacy to help de-escalate tensions and resolve disputes, and developing support to help with upstream prevention work.”

I highlight Nigeria as one country with close links to the UK where I fear the risk of genocide is growing. Around 90 hon. Members attended the Open Doors 2023 world watch list launch here last week and heard how Nigeria is now the sixth highest country for persecution of Christians; indeed, it would be top if the list were based just on the number of recorded deaths. We must condemn in the strongest possible terms the ongoing attacks against Christians and moderate Muslims by Islamic extremists in that country, and call out the Nigerian Government’s repeated denial of any such targeted religious persecution and their failure to act adequately to address it and protect the targeted.

Finally, we must do more work on educating the next generation about the importance of freedom of religion or belief, so that “never again” becomes a reality for their generation in a way that, sadly, as I have said, it has not for ours. This is the ultimate upstream prevention work, and it is vital. One of the main takeaways from last year’s ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which I was privileged to co-host, was the inspiration of the development of education toolkits for teachers to use in primary schools, to give even the youngest children an understanding of freedom of religion or belief and of the vital importance—

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

Certainly.

[John Cryer]

In the context of what the hon. Member is saying about education, will she join me in congratulating the HET, the CST and other organisations on educating people and also on combating antisemitism, including, sadly, in my own party and in other institutions?

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will indeed congratulate the Holocaust Educational Trust later in my speech.

It is vital that we teach even the youngest children about the importance of not discriminating against others on account of their beliefs, just as they understand so well the importance of not discriminating against others on account of disability.

I have the privilege of chairing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, a growing group of 42 countries whose Governments, like ours, have formally committed to protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief around the world. It is our aspiration to see the toolkit that I mentioned, when it is developed, used in schools across our 42 countries. I am proud that the toolkit is currently being piloted in the UK, including in a school in my constituency.

As the years go by and our brave, inspirational holocaust survivors, with their testimonies, diminish in number, we must ensure that their voice is sustained, not least with young ambassadors. I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust for the excellent work that it does in that regard.

The alliance I chair is promoting the connection of young freedom of religion or belief ambassadors around the world. We are working towards a 2023 virtual global conference engaging young FORB ambassadors, and we want to involve three groups of young people: first, young people from democratic societies like our own who have not personally experienced persecution but care about the issue and want to do more; secondly, young people in the diaspora here in the UK with ties in countries such as Nigeria and direct concerns to relay; and, thirdly and critically, young people who live in countries where there is persecution and are experiencing it themselves—places such as Myanmar, where there is already strong interest from young people, and Hong Kong, where oppression on account of religion is an increasing concern.

As we plan this virtual global conference, I would welcome contacts from colleagues, all-party parliamentary group country chairs and others with young people from across the world who may be interested in engaging with the event late in 2023. This is a way in which we here can act. Indeed, we can all do something to make “never again” a reality for the next generation, and it is so heartening that, in this Parliament, elected Members right across the political spectrum are determined to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Grit Bins

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robert Largan]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion for her constituents in Hyndburn. I will talk about schools later in my speech.

As I said, I was caught out in the middle of Storm Malik. A number of local residents who were waiting for the power to come back on were surprised to find their local MP on their doorstep, checking up on them while looking like a drowned rat. All this weather, along with the beautiful landscape of the Peak District and the poor quality of many rural roads, means that grit provision is of particular importance in my constituency.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In my constituency of Congleton, the provision of grit bins is an issue not just in the very extreme weather that he mentions, but each winter. Residents of Mow Cop, in my constituency, which has very steep gradients up to it, are concerned about safe access in icy weather and concerned that the roads are appropriately gritted—not least because many of the residents are elderly, and we need to ensure that access for emergency vehicles and emergency home deliveries is secured.

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, particularly about the impact that this issue has on the elderly.

Grit bins are a big issue in my constituency, but unfortunately local provision is frequently not up to the task. In High Peak there are multiple tiers of local government: Derbyshire County Council, High Peak Borough Council and a whole plethora of town and parish councils. Typically, parish and town councils take responsibility for providing and maintaining grit bins in High Peak, with varying degrees of effectiveness. However, Buxton, Glossop, Hadfield and Padfield are not parished, and therefore they fall between the tiers of local government on grit bin provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a fantastic champion for the people of Durham.

This winter, I have received a huge number of complaints from constituents who have been unable to go to work, take their children to school or even attend appointments to see their doctor, because of the lack of gritting on their streets. They have even been unable to leave their home safely in bad weather.

This is particularly acute on new build estates, where no grit bins have been provided. Given the huge scale of house building in Glossop and Buxton, this problem will only grow. On Scotty Brook Crescent in Shirebrook, a short walk from my Glossop home, local resident Kim Price and local councillor Paul Hardy have been trying in vain for over a year to get a new grit bin installed, but without success. Similarly, on Carr Road in Burbage, local resident Greg Windows has been leading calls for a grit bin on his estate. Greg told me how he and his neighbours live in constant watch for bad weather and are forced to park their cars on the main road at the top of the estate whenever snow is forecast, for fear of being left stranded.

Back in November, when we had Storm Arwen, an ambulance became stuck in the snow and ice on Victoria Park Road in Fairfield. Local residents were quick to respond and cleared the road with shovels, digging out the ambulance. While this demonstrates the generous community spirit of the people of High Peak, it also highlights the failure of the local councils to engage constructively with each other to deliver an essential service. The councils’ failure has a long-term cost measured in broken hips, as residents slip on untreated ice. Leaving people stranded and unable to go about their lives also puts a significant strain on their mental health and wellbeing.

For the reasons that I have set out today, hundreds of people have signed my petition urging Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Borough Council to get around the table to resolve their dispute and get on with installing new grit bins in Glossop, Buxton, Hadfield and Padfield.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about grit bins. Does he agree that it would be helpful for the Minister, in responding to this debate, to consider the provision of grit bins within a highways authority’s overarching obligation? Section 41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980 states that highways authorities

“are under a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.”

That is an overarching obligation that should surely apply, whether or not grit bins are provided.

[Robert Largan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In High Peak, we boast some beautiful scenery but also some of the most difficult rural roads, which are often closed during bad weather. It is the duty of the local authority to do everything it can to keep those key links open.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I want to use this opportunity to call on the Government to consider whether legislative changes are necessary in order to try to clear up the ambiguity of responsibility for utilities, such as grit bins, in two-tier authorities.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The person that he referred to who came to Belfast then came to Millisle, which is where the Kindertransport children came who were fortunate enough to get out of Germany. It became home for many of them and that is important. Although Millisle is only on the edge of my constituency, the farm is in my constituency. It played an important role in the Kindertransport operation, giving refuge to Jewish children.

A local businessman, Lawrence Gorman, leased his derelict farmhouse to the Belfast Refugee Aid, which is the point that the right hon. Gentleman made. Ballyrolly House, where the children were, has grown greatly. There is now a housing estate there with private housing, as well as Ballyrolly. This small village in County Down became known as a haven from Nazi terror. Years later, many of those children returned as adults to Millisle to thank the people who helped them, including Lawrence Gorman and the residents and people of Millisle who saved lives.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for his constant dedication in his role as the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief; he is an example to us all. Will he join me in welcoming plans for the UK-hosted ministerial meeting on freedom of religion or belief in July this year, an international conference that will bring together Government Ministers, faith leaders and civil society representatives from around the world, giving us an important opportunity together to review lessons learned from previous atrocities and to ensure that they do not happen again?

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate that intervention and, in return, thank the hon. Lady for all she does as the envoy to the middle east on behalf of Christians and other ethnic minorities. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG and I am glad that the hon. Lady made that point.

We talk about genocide and today is about the holocaust, but it is also a day, as the hon. Member for Putney said, to remember those who have been subject to persecution, such as Christians across the world and in the middle east, China and North Korea; the Uyghurs in China; the Baha’is in Iran; the Shias in Iran and Iraq; the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia; the Muslims in India; the Hindus in Pakistan; the Yazidis in Iraq; and the Hazaras in Afghanistan. All those are being tortured and murdered because of their beliefs, and that is the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) gently reminded us all of the seminar that is happening this year. It is great to know that the Government will be central in highlighting the genocide that is taking place against many people of different religious groups across the world—it is a salient reminder.

I also want to tell the House about an Austrian refugee, Alfred Neumann, who arranged visas and brought Jewish refugees from Vienna to Newtownards—I suspect that he may be the very guy that brought that young person to Belfast. He came and contributed to life in Newtownards, helped to train people in crafts and to make belts and handbags and create home industries. It has been said that no one in Northern Ireland saved more lives from the holocaust than Alfred Neumann; he was from Cookstown in County Tyrone and he came the whole way to County Down. We are very pleased he did and many people are alive because of it. These efforts, during a period of persecution and loss are worthy of the deepest respect, and I am immensely proud to recognise the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland in providing sanctuary to those who fled such horror.

Some Members in the Chamber may have visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. I am afraid I have not, although it has always been my intention to do so. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to education, the importance of which has been illustrated by every speaker today, and I want to talk about what we have done back home. Many younger people in my constituency have recognised the moral responsibility to go to the concentration camps and to experience what took place. My youngest staff member made the pilgrimage at the age of 18 and that part of history has become one of interest and significance to young people.

In our schools in Northern Ireland the curriculum covers the two world wars. It is imperative that remembrance of the holocaust remains a vital element of our curriculum, so I thank my friend and colleague Peter Weir MLA, who as the then Northern Ireland Education Minister allocated funding of £160,000 to support the Holocaust Educational Trust to deliver the Lessons from Auschwitz project to Northern Ireland schools and colleges as part of our education programme. That is what we all want to see, and I am sure that the Minister and the House are united today on how important it is to have that in place. The project ensures that young people learn from that dark chapter of human history, remember it and understand that it must never happen again.

Although the motion relates to Holocaust Memorial Day, I would like to take a minute to highlight the fact, which many hon. Members have referred to, that antisemitism still pervades our society. It is an evil stain on mankind, and for that reason we must continue to support lessons about the holocaust, listen to those remaining few who bore witness, and remember. We must be clear that antisemitism was the foundation on which the genocidal plan was built. The personal narratives of those who survived to bear witness must never be diluted or diminished.

The holocaust remains on the conscience of humanity because in the middle of the 20th century—the most progressive century in human history—humanity experienced its greatest failure. It failed to do what was right; indeed, it did what was wrong, with a vengeance.

Triumph can come from failure, and it must provide hope. I end with a sentence from Magda Herzberger, who was in the concentration camps and prayed to God that she would make it out alive:

“You have to also carry in your heart forgiveness…If you do that, people live in harmony.”

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]]

While comparisons with the holocaust should never be made lightly, the suffering of at least 200,000 North Koreans in Kim Jong-un’s prison camps, many of them prisoners of conscience, is not dissimilar from that in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen or Stalin’s gulag. The only difference with North Korea is that the incarceration, atrocities and absolute totalitarian repression have continued there for longer—for decades.

More than 10 years ago, the UN’s first special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea described the human rights crisis there as sui generis—in a category of its own. A 2014 UN commission of inquiry chaired by the distinguished Australian judge Michael Kirby concluded that the gravity, scale and nature of human rights violations in North Korea reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world, and designated those violations as crimes against humanity. The reality is that, in North Korea, there is no freedom whatsoever. Every single article of the universal declaration of human rights is violated every single day.

That 2014 UN report recommended that those responsible be brought to account, but those steps have not been taken, and subsequent years have seen only further crimes. In the light of that, the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, of which I am a co-chair, launched an inquiry into human rights in that country since the UN report of 2014. Our aim is to shine a parliamentary light. We also wish to spotlight the urgent need for the UK and other states to challenge and suppress these ongoing violations in North Korea, and to work towards bringing those responsible to justice. It is welcome that Lord Ahmad, our Minister for human rights, attended the APPG recently and make clear his support for, and the active engagement of the FCDO with, our inquiry.

The voice that matters in this debate is that of the victims and survivors, to whom I pay tribute. One such is the North Korean escapee Timothy Cho, who not long ago worked as an intern in my office for a year. His hope and enthusiasm for democracy, freedom and the rule of law to be present in his home country is inspirational. We owe it to him and to the victims and remaining survivors of the holocaust and other genocides, however difficult the challenge, not to ignore human rights violations across the globe, including those in North Korea today.

Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Gypsies, Travellers and the planning system.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also thank other hon. Members for being present today, including Members who have long spoken out on these issues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and others. I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council.

I have called this debate because it is my contention that the Government’s planning policy with regards to Gypsies and Travellers is simply not working. I call on the Minister to ensure that during this five-year term of Conservative government, we finally get on top of this issue, because the policy is going in the wrong direction. Planning policy with regards to Travellers has as its aim

“to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community.”

What I want, and what I think most hon. Members want, is for everyone in the planning system to receive fair and equal treatment regardless of their background. The present policy regarding Travellers does not respect the interests of the settled community. The Government go on to say that in respect of Traveller sites, their aim is to reduce tensions between the settled and Traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions. I say to the Minister that far from reducing tensions, the present planning system is inflaming them, because Travellers effectively have preferential treatment within the planning system.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about the settled community, we do not just mean residents—although they can be deeply troubled by this issue—but people who are seeking to earn a living through their businesses in local communities? Within the past few days, a business has written to me to say that it is having repeated difficulties because of wrongful occupation of a business site in my constituency. I know that is not the only place where this is happening; it is a repeated occurrence.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point in an excellent way, and I entirely concur. However, the settled community does not include only residents and businesses, but Travellers. During one of his excellent debates on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire pointed out that we know from the 2011 census that three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in houses, bungalows or flats. Only a quarter live in caravans or mobile homes, yet Gypsies and Travellers as a whole have an existing, separate planning law for themselves that only applies to a quarter of their population. That kind of special treatment within the planning system applies to no other ethnic group.

Assisted Dying Law

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I absolutely agree. I have also experienced final moments with a loved one who was being cared for in a hospice. They were incredibly well looked after. The whole family was looked after and supported. Changing the law should not under any circumstances mean depriving anyone of the option of palliative care. Indeed, palliative care is as important as a choice at the end of life. Again, it should be available to everyone, and we should support it in any way we can.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

What is the hon. Lady’s response to the evidence that, in countries where assisted suicide has been made legal, investment in palliative care has fallen?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. That is something we would have to be aware of, but I believe it is up to us to address it. It is up to the lawmakers and the Government in this country to ensure that we increase our investment in palliative care as a choice. There is that word again: choice. Free will—the ability to choose.

Seven years ago, in another landmark, my belief in that was firmed up by a conversation following a newspaper article I had written. At the time, the late, irrepressible Margo MacDonald was guiding her second, ultimately unsuccessful bid to make assisted dying legal in Scotland through the Parliament at Holyrood. I originally met Margo while I was a young journalist, and her amazing personality and commitment had a huge impact on me. That did not have an impact on my politics, of course—we had very different views—but I recognised in her someone who lived their beliefs and their politics. I had spoken to her while I was writing the piece, and I visited her office afterwards. On this issue more than any other, she had a profound effect on me. It was several years ago now, but that conversation has stayed with me and made me determined to protect the right of the individual—my right; your right—to choose to have the dignity that we want in our final moments. Why should any of us, knowing that we are not going to survive, be forced to endure unnecessary pain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I will turn to the part of my speech that deals with some concerning developments from other jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide, as I prefer to call it. In Oregon physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill was legalised 10 years ago. The annual Government report of 2018 stated that more than half of those applying now cite

“fear of being a burden”

as their major end-of-life concern. Far fewer cite pain concerns. Disability groups are extremely concerned about what has happened, for example, in Canada since 2016. In just four years, under the law that has allowed terminally ill people to request assisted suicide and euthanasia, safeguards have been ignored, removed and extended to non-terminally ill people such as those with depression. In July a depressed but otherwise healthy man was killed by lethal injection, despite not being terminally ill. Another man who suffers from a neurological disease actually recorded hospital staff offering him a medically assisted death, despite repeated statements that he did not want to die. Only this week, on Tuesday, there was an article in The Times about three Belgian doctors on trial in relation to the euthanasia of someone reported to have a personality disorder and autism. The family believes that she was depressed but that she did not, as required by Belgian law, have a serious and incurable disorder.

The point to note is that, regardless of the wording of eligibility criteria in legislation, in practice safeguards are often discarded, and vulnerable and depressed people are assisted to end their lives. That applies in all jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide or euthanasia. In Canada, where medical aid in dying was legalised in 2016, the superior court of Quebec ruled last September that it was unconstitutional to limit access to medical assistance in dying to people nearing the end of life. That is particularly concerning because, while the ruling applies only to Quebec, the Canadian Government have now committed to changing the MAID law for the whole country, so it will no longer be, as was originally intended, limited to those nearing the end of life.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I realise that time is short. I do not have time to rebut all those arguments, and I will not do so in my speech, but will she address why more and more jurisdictions across the United States, Canada and Australia are changing the law and extending provision, if they think it is not safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Actually very few jurisdictions have legalised those issues, and the lessons that we are learning from them need to be learned now, so that more do not do so.

In Canada, for example, the Federal Government are now considering MAID for what they call “mature minors” and people with mental illness. It is easy to see from the example of Canada how quickly assisted dying laws have expanded, removing safeguards and protections for vulnerable patients. Tragically, in Belgium and the Netherlands, where the law allows euthanasia and assisted suicide, the original criteria have already been expanded to include children. Is that really what we want for the UK? Surely we can do better than that.

Rather than assisting vulnerable people to commit suicide, or administering euthanasia, we should be looking to improve palliative care provision and mental health treatment. Much has been done over recent years here in that regard, and more needs to be done. Let us keep our focus on that in this country. Marie Curie estimates that 25% of cancer patients do not currently get the palliative care that they need. That is an issue to which this House should turn its attention. I am pleased to note that Baroness Finlay has introduced a Bill in the other place to do just that—the Access to Palliative Care and Treatment of Children Bill. The UK is a pioneer in palliative medicine and a world leader in palliative care. Let us keep it that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this important debate. As we always do in such debates, we have heard passionate contributions from all sides, with Members speaking from personal experience and discussions with constituents. I suspect I am no different from most Members inasmuch as members of my family have died from cancer; indeed, both of my parents did. My views are shaped to a considerable extent by my belief that life is sacred and God-given.

There will be those who will immediately say, “Why should you impose those views on the rest of society?” In actual fact, society is based on religious values—we might not think of them as religious, but that is certainly the case—and those values have shaped the law. The law must ultimately determine matters of this kind. I mentioned my parents. My mother died in a hospice, and I saw the change from the care she received prior to going there; likewise with my father. Our views are inevitably shaped by such personal and difficult circumstances.

Like the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I offer a few reflections, rather than a clear direction because it would be difficult to decide how to shape a law that could cover all possible circumstances and justify a change. I do not think we can justify change at the moment, not just because I am personally opposed to it but because, as was mentioned, it would change the relationship between doctor and patient. We should treasure that relationship. Rather than opening the door to assisting us to die, patients—all of us—need to have confidence that our medical professionals are striving to keep us in good health and alive.

[Fiona Bruce]

No major medical organisation is in favour of changing the law to promote assisted suicide in this country. What comment does my hon. Friend have to say about that?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is notable that most professional organisations favour the current arrangements, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, one of the royal colleges now has a neutral stance. That is regrettable. The key thing is that any change in that direction is a signal that society places a lesser price on the value of life.

My plea to those who favour change is to consider the relationship between the doctor and the patient, how we could frame a law that covered all circumstances and whether we would be taking a further step towards euthanasia. Society is moving towards a position where it might accept assisted dying, but the big danger is what could be the next step after that.