Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing today’s debate. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, I join colleagues on both sides of the House in taking a moment to pause, despite all that is happening around us right now, and reflect on and remember the greatest crime in history.

I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Aegis Trust for their action on education and prevention in my constituency, across the country and around the world. We must never forget that we must use our power and responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure this never happens again. Unfortunately, and to our great shame, “never again” has become time and time again in the 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. At this very moment, as we have this debate, genocide and crimes against humanity are taking place all over the world, against the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Yazidis and more recently, the Tigrayan people in western Ethiopia. Genocide Watch now considers Ethiopia to be at genocide stage 9 out of 10: extermination.

Well-meaning words and statements will only get us so far, but as parliamentarians we must go further. What can we do? We can be assertive—braver at calling out genocides and crimes against humanity. Our second tool is accountability. We have to hold the Government to account on how they monitor, respond to and prevent atrocities. We can call for more training for our civil servants around the world to spot signs early and report them before atrocities take place.

We can also show political leadership. Our Executive need to lead from the front, and one thing they could be doing is reporting annually to Parliament on an at-risk register—a list of countries in relation to crimes against humanity, to stop them before they become genocide. We would do well to follow the example of the United States in that regard. In 2018, Congress passed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which called for a government-wide atrocity prevention strategy. We should look into that.

On our language, we must set our own house in order to combat antisemitism and discriminatory and dehumanising language in everything we say. We should increase our offer of sanctuary for victims of terror and for child refugees from around the world. I invite all Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide. On this Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the 6 million Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution, and we say that genocide does not start with genocide; it starts with the denial of rights. I say “Never again”.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

To present this appalling Bill to the House once was outrageous, showing contempt for our European friends and neighbours, trampling all over international law and riding roughshod over devolution. To push it through for a second time, deliberately putting back in place all the same flaws as before, is therefore simply shameless, but that is exactly what the Government are attempting to do today by way of these motions to disagree. The Government simply are not listening to some of the most serious, widespread and weighty criticism that any Government Bill has received in recent times, and they certainly are not listening to the devolved Governments and Parliaments. Every single one of the reasons for rejecting this Bill previously remain equally valid now as reasons for opposing these Government motions.

Like others, I will focus on the amendments that relate to international law and to devolution. On the former, the House of Lords did what had to be done by taking out the clear breach of international law and the attack on the rule of law that part 5 represented. It bears repeating again that the Government are expressly asking us to pass legislation in breach of an agreement they signed just months ago with a counterpart they are still negotiating with. That is simply astonishing, and we cannot let it be spoken about as if this is no big deal or in any way normal. Proceeding in this way represents a

“very real and direct threat to the rule of law, which includes the country’s obligations under public international law.”

These are not my words, but those of the Law Society and the Bar Council. When these provisions were first introduced, it seemed simply a totally cack-handed and counterproductive negotiating tactic, but, embarrassingly, here they are still pursuing this reckless possibility and offering up the removal of these clauses as part of negotiations on the future relationship changes nothing. It simply confirms that the Government are happy to threaten to go back on their word as a means of trying to get their own way. What an astonishing way for any Government to behave.

On devolution, all the House of Lords did was to water down the clear, obvious and extensive power grab on devolution. It did this through some modest obligations around consultation and giving the common frameworks process priority over ministerial diktat. It ditched the reservations of state aid and powers to bypass devolved Governments and devolved public spending. It provided greater scope for divergence on environmental, social and other grounds. None of that should be controversial, but, again, shamefully, the Government are seeking to restore the power grab to its fullest extent. Doing so undermines the possibility of policy divergence and the opportunities for the devolved Governments to deliver policies that protect and advance the interests of their citizens, and it restores the grim prospect of a race to the bottom. These Government motions are anti-devolution and they are anti-democratic. Again, they should be rejected.

In conclusion, let us be clear about what these proceedings tell us about the UK Government and the UK constitution. They tell us that Governments can, and that this one will, rip up international agreements signed just months ago. They tell us that power devolved is as exactly as was promised: power retained, with the devolved settlement to be amended or deleted at the will of the UK Government. Finally, with the UK out of the EU, the human rights regime under review, judicial oversight under attack, the second Chamber in reality toothless, this Chamber a rubber stamp for the Government, and devolution undermined, we say that the checks and balances on the UK Government have never, ever been weaker. In short, the Bill shows us that the UK’s political system and constitution are not fit for purpose, and that the sooner we are out of it, the better.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).

We are in the middle of a public health emergency and an economic crisis, yet as always the Government are doing their assignment the night before it is due, or maybe later. Now is the time for competence and consensus, so the country can move on and recover. Instead, the Government have introduced legislation that knowingly and openly breaks international law, and will frustrate the process of getting a deal further still. It is unnecessary, it undermines the rule of law, it undermines devolution, it is internationally damaging to our reputation and it threatens to undermine the Good Friday agreement.

I have had 80 constituents write to me ahead of the debate expressing their disgust at what this deal is attempting to do and urging me to support the amendments made in the other place. They are representative of constituents across Putney, across London and across the country. It is not just my local constituents who were left bemused by the first publication of the Bill. President-elect Joe Biden made it crystal clear that the Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland cannot become a casualty of Brexit. He has made it clear that a future trade deal hinges on that. The Bill will end up undermining trust in us as a country.

I therefore urge colleagues to accept Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill. For those of us who still believe in the rule of law, the amendments are crucial. As the motion from the convenor of the Cross-Bench peers, Lord Judge, stated:

“Part 5 of the bill…would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.”

He said that by supporting it, Parliament, which is responsible for making the laws and expects people to obey the laws it makes, would be knowingly granting power to the Executive to break the law.

The strength of feeling on this from the learned and noble peers in the other place cannot be ignored. In Committee, Members in the other place voted by 433 to 165 to remove clause 42. That vote was the largest in terms of turnout since remote voting was introduced in the other place and the third largest since the House was reformed in 1999. How can we ignore the disappointment and anger in the other place? How can the Government expect the public to follow lockdown restrictions or China to respect the Sino-British joint declaration, when they grant themselves a mandate to break the law? States and citizens alike are going to rightly think that it is one rule for them and another for us.

This is about Britain’s reputation, not Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation that stands by its commitments? Do we want to be able to strike good trade deals with other countries? As we deal with the economic damage inflicted by the pandemic, we need to be winning international friends and not alienating them. Brexit has actually done enough damage already. In my own constituency, businesses have already had to close and jobs have already been lost. Let us not compound that by not accepting the Lords amendments this evening. I welcome the Lords amendments and I urge colleagues, for Britain’s sake, to support the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of the Government and against the Lords amendments. I do so as somebody who campaigned and voted in the referendum for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. I believe passionately that a close, positive relationship with our friends and allies is very important to us and very important to them for the future.

However, it seems to me that, in addressing these issues tonight, we need to be enormously pragmatic. Those of us on the Government Benches, when we fought an election and accepted that our plan was to acknowledge the decision of the British people and to put it into effect, accepted the responsibility to make the decisions that would enable that to happen. Taking the stand that the Government are on this matter this evening is, in my view, a crucial step on that journey.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

That is a really important issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these businesses want people to trade. At the moment, both Arcadia and Debenhams have said that they will accept vouchers, and I encourage anybody who is shopping at either store to use their credit card if they are spending more than £100, because then the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicks in. At this moment, vouchers are accepted.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that although Putney high street is very much loved and the centre of our local community, people are concerned about the fact that covid is accelerating the number of shops that are going? Will he consider a reform of the business rates, and of the meanwhile use rules, so that we can have more community activities in our shops on the high street?

[Paul Scully]

There is a really good community in Putney—I was there a few months ago at the business improvement district—and the more we can strip away through encouraging innovation through meanwhile use provisions, the better. I have spoken about the fundamental review of business rates, and it is important that we look at the whole thing.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions continue. He and I have had those discussions as well. But he makes the point that this is a business Bill, and I hope that every Member, like him, will support it on Third Reading.

We have taken these powers to ensure that, in the event that we do not reach an agreement with our EU friends on how to implement the protocol, we are able to deliver on promises in our manifesto and in the Command Paper. This is a legal safety net that clarifies our position on the Northern Ireland protocol, protecting our Union, businesses and jobs.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Irish Foreign Minister said recently that this Bill undermines the EU withdrawal legislation, has damaged trust between the Irish and UK negotiating teams, and is damaging Britain’s reputation globally. Does that give the Secretary of State any cause for concern?

[Alok Sharma]

This has been debated over the long passage of the Bill in this House. As the hon. Lady and other Members will know, we introduced an amendment in Committee that provides a break-glass mechanism that ensures that the safety net will come into force only if a motion in this House is passed with a requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that will allow her to vote for the Bill on Third Reading.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend will know that anybody who has been a regular member of Her Majesty’s armed forces will receive priority treatment from local authorities with regard to housing and housing need. I certainly commend the work of Help 4 Homeless Veterans, led by its chief executive officer, Mr Steven Bentham-Bates, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I wish them, and him, more power to their elbow.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the number of universal credit and jobseekers allowance claimants has more than doubled since the lockdown. Almost a third of employees have been furloughed and a third of households in Putney are rented privately. With the evictions ban ending last weekend, the ending of furlough coming up very soon, and yesterday’s announcement of six months’ more restrictions, does the Minister agree that this is the perfect storm? Will he now end section 21 no-fault evictions?

[Christopher Pincher]

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has, with his Department, increased welfare spending by £9.3 billion since this crisis began. That is helping millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are in need of universal credit. The Chancellor has introduced the job retention scheme and the furlough scheme, which has resulted in our spending something like £35 billion to help 9 million people, so we have taken very tangible steps to help people through this difficulty. We will continue to keep all our policies under review as the epidemic develops. It has some way to go yet, and we shall be watching and reacting as appropriate.

Flammable Cladding Removal

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Minister to use his powers and his position to look at these issues in the round, so that he can sleep at night and feel comfortable that he has done everything to protect people. Ultimately, we have a duty of care and responsibility to our citizens, and I hope that he will do all he can to address these points today.

My own local authority has 49 ACM-clad high-rise blocks, which is one of the highest figures in the country. I have had representations from many of my constituents over the past few years. It been years now, and the leaseholders have had to pay for the fire safety wardens. They were originally told that this would take a few months, but it has been years. They are worried about their safety and there is no end in sight for the work being completed. It has been done for some blocks but not for others.

A number of people have been told that the housing providers will not be able to provide the fire service reports. I hope that the Minister can give me some clarity on the need for transparency here, because whether they are private developers who own the freehold or housing associations, they should provide the fire safety reports. Without them, it is difficult for our residents to know how much they will have to pay if there is no Government funding, or to make plans for their future.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Do you agree that many of my constituents in the Riverside Quarter, the Swish Building and the Argento Tower are facing this same limbo and have no end in sight? The fund needs to be given out more quickly and transparently. Would you agree that the Minister is not doing enough to explain about these funds and when they will be made available for residents?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady mind saying, “Would the hon. Lady agree” rather than “Would you agree”?

Leaseholders and Cladding

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and all those from across the country who have spoken in the debate to show what strength of feeling there is. I want to join them, to represent my many constituents who feel just as strongly. Their lives are a misery because of the situation—surely an unforeseen result from a fund that is meant to save lives and to be a good thing for people across the country. Actually it has led to dreadful circumstances for residents.

To add to the stories we have heard, I will mention the leaseholders of 66 and 200 flats respectively at two buildings in my constituency—the Swish building and the Riverside Quarter. They have been told by their freeholder that the cladding and other fire safety measures in the building—the cladding is either not ACM, or it is a mixture between ACM and HPL—do not now meet the standard that the Government regard as adequate for the issue of a fire safety certificate, and that recladding is needed. To their horror, they have been told that they need to foot the bill for the work, which comes to tens of thousands of pounds. They have not been told exactly how much the cost is, but they believe it is between £50,000 and £80,000 per flat.

That raises a few issues, the first of which is safety. If the current cladding does not meet the safety requirements for a safety certificate, are the blocks safe? As we have heard today, different blocks are being treated differently. The fire regulations are not up to scratch. Another issue is fairness. To make leaseholders foot the bill is outrageous. They are not multi-million pound landlords, by any stretch. They are normal people trying to live their lives, and they do not have £50,000 lying around. The situation is taking a huge emotional toll.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the unfair cost to leaseholders, which we have all highlighted. Does she agree that, as the taxpayer could ultimately foot the bill, we should make sure that dodgy developers, or those who will not step up to the mark, do not get away with a situation where the taxpayer bails people out just because they will not pay?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. There has to be a way to make the fund easy to use and urgently accessible, so that it is not held up for a long time in red tape, and the right people have to foot the bill. I argue that the Government need to extend the cladding fund to all types of unsafe cladding. That is what it is there for.

As to the emotional toll, one person said:

“The net result for me is that I will lose my home, as I cannot sell it, or raise a mortgage to finance repairs because it is unsellable and I am unemployed, and therefore will lose my lease.”

He will become homeless as a result. Another resident told me that his flat is unsaleable and effectively worthless. It was bought in 2004 in good faith in the belief that it was a safe home. The fact that it is now considered to have the problems in question is not of his making:

“We cannot afford to pay a sum of this size on top of the existing service charge”.

In summary, I am as shocked as everyone else here. I hope that the Minister will urgently tell us some good news. Three years after Grenfell, my constituents are being asked to fork out huge sums of money for a building that ultimately they do not own—a point that relates back to the leaseholder crisis. No leaseholder should have to pay for the work in question, or experience such huge stress and uncertainty. An urgent response is needed. I join those who are asking for the cladding fund to be urgently extended to all forms of unsafe cladding.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their collective discipline in time management, which has given us just over half an hour for the Front-Bench speakers.

Homelessness

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in a debate that is important for my constituents in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton. I pay tribute to Glass Door, a charity which runs night shelters in local churches. There are no homeless shelters run by the state or the council in Wandsworth, so Glass Door is making up the shortfall.

I will focus on the hidden homelessness of temporary accommodation and what that really means for so many families in my area and across the country. The latest figures show that 3,070 children are living in temporary accommodation in Wandsworth—just one London borough —and that 35% of them, meaning nearly 700 from my constituency, are housed out of borough.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that out-of-borough housing, often in seaside towns, means that people move away from their communities and support networks?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree, and I will share the story of one family to illustrate how the benefits and housing system are failing. I have been working with the family for several years as a councillor—I am also a Wandsworth councillor.

The hard-working dad of three children works on the buses, so he is suffering from in-work poverty. At their lowest point, the family, including the three children, had been evicted and were sleeping in their car. One council provided help, providing them with temporary accommodation and storage for their possessions, but that is a postcode lottery; most councils do not provide storage for possessions at a time when people need it most. The temporary accommodation they were offered was in Colchester—miles away—and the dad had to spend his income on commuting back to London for work. The children had to move schools.

The family were then moved to other temporary accommodation, where they did not have enough room even for a table for the children to do their homework or to have a TV. They are now in other accommodation in my constituency, but the three children have to travel for two hours on three buses to get to school, and then two hours back. This is making them so tired that they cannot do their best at school.

There are families criss-crossing London, with children sleeping on their mother’s laps. Parents are having to wait near their children’s schools because they do not have time to go home and come back again, so they cannot seek work. That means they cannot save money for a deposit, so they cannot get out of this cycle.

Temporary accommodation is a symptom of a failing housing and benefits system, and the details of it really matter to parents. They need storage and they need funding for school journeys, and they should always be a priority. There should be a duty to place families closer to their children’s schools.

This system is failing hundreds of children from Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and the 127,000 children across the UK who are in temporary accommodation tonight. The Government have had 10 years to fix this scandal, and it is shocking that this is happening in 2020. I hope they will finally take action.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The street count system is not working, and people do not trust it. When they see the increasing number of people sleeping on our streets but the statistics say the numbers are going down, something is wrong and the Government need to review it.

Despite Labour-led Brighton & Hove City Council creating 50 new rough sleeper move-on beds and the country’s first 365-day emergency shelter, hundreds still remain on our streets and in our emergency accommodation every night, and it is costing lives. Five people have died in two months at one local emergency accommodation. The staff of another emergency accommodation call the basement room the “suicide room.”

[Fleur Anderson]

I have already mentioned that Wandsworth does not have emergency accommodation, so does my hon. Friend agree that there should be more emergency accommodation and that it needs to provide services, not just rooms?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Exactly, and that might stop some of the deaths, but the deaths are not just in emergency accommodation; they are on our streets. In the past year Robert Bartlett, aged 30, died on 29 October. Robert was sleeping rough and died of an overdose.

William Morrow, aged 45, died on 4 April. He was described as an extremely likeable person. He had been living rough for a little while, and the inquest found he died of a heroin overdose after detoxing—a very familiar story.

Arna Bud-Husain, 49, died on 11 April. Arna was a resident at one of our homeless hostels. Andrew O’Connell, 54, was violently attacked for being homeless and died on 8 August while sleeping rough.

There are those who have not been named but are confirmed as having died while sleeping rough in Brighton. In October, a 39-year-old man died sleeping rough and a 60-year-old died while living in emergency accommodation. In November: a 34-year-old man who died from sepsis; a 41-year-old woman; and another 41-year-old who had been evicted from their emergency accommodation only the day before. In December, a 35-year-old woman. In January, a 50-year-old died in temporary accommodation. The year before: in March, a man in his 50s and a 33-year old-man died; in April, a 45-year-old man died; and in July, a 36-year-old man died. Those are just the people who have died in Brighton up until July 2019—many more have died in the past six months on our streets, in our city. Three of the men’s bodies were so badly decomposed when they were discovered that forensic testing was needed to identify them.

The failure to address the rising tide of homelessness under the Conservative Government is not only causing an increase in rough sleeping; it is literally causing the deaths of my constituents. We are talking about a 51% increase in the past five years alone, and the average age now for someone on the streets is 44. Being homeless is in itself a vulnerability and many councils up and down our country treat it not; they say, “You have to be vulnerable within the street homeless community to get support.” That must change, and I hope we can change it.