Business of the House
Debate between Joy Morrissey and Lucy Powell(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is an honour to be responding to business questions as we march on to the recess. I know that the Leader of the House has had a challenging few weeks, but I want to start by thanking her for everything that she has done to advocate for Members in this House.
This morning, we have learned that the Government have been prevented from signing their Chagos surrender deal by the High Court. When will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain this latest humiliation and masterclass in how not to negotiate in Britain’s interests?
I know that Members across the House often say things in the Chamber and elsewhere that they regret. I know, too, that the Leader of the House has said that she regrets her words on rape gangs, but it is for the victims of those rape gangs to decide whether those regrets are enough. It is time for the Government finally to take action on this scandal. Will she grant a debate, in Government time, on the rape gang scandal, and commit the Government to the national inquiry that the victims deserve?
At the previous business questions, I called on the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to U-turn on her disastrous economic policies. Since then, things have got even worse. This week, inflation, which stood at 2% when Labour took office, has surged to 3.5%. Today, public sector net borrowing hit £20.2 billion, the fourth highest figure for the month since records began. We have had a disastrous Budget followed by an emergency one, and it looks like the next one could be catastrophic.
It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has also had enough of the Chancellor’s economic policies. The difference is that we on the Conservative Benches want the tax raids on businesses and households to be reversed, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants more tax and more spend. Yesterday, the Prime Minister would not rule out more tax rises either. I think that we can all see what is coming: £40 billion of tax rises last autumn was never going to be enough for this Government—a Government who are tough with the vulnerable, but weak with the unions.
The Deputy Prime Minister may be on leadership manoeuvres, but it is quite a shopping list of new taxes that she is after—although, curiously, further taxes on second homes were not included. It is the people who save hard for their retirement and build businesses who are next in the firing line for the tax-raid obsession of this Labour Government. To pensioners, farmers and business owners we can now add savers to the list of people whom this Government seem determined to make poor. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate, in Government time, on the Government’s economic plans, so that the Deputy Prime Minister can also come and set out her tax plans for the House. I would be very interested to see the tag-team operation there.
If the Deputy Prime Minister is otherwise engaged, perhaps we could turn our attention to yesterday’s welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister. I understand that he has always been gifted with the most flexible of principles, but it was quite a sight yesterday to see him admitting to promising a U-turn on punishing pensioners without any date for that U-turn, or an explanation of whether it would benefit all or just some pensioners. Crucially, we did not hear an apology from him. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the winter fuel payment U-turn, so that the Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, can come to this House and apologise to pensioners and set out when they will give pensioners the certainty that they can heat their homes next winter?
Let me conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ah, thank you. We are watching the Government in a slow-motion car crash, with no economic plan but to tax and spend as fast as they can. It is not the gingerbread man; it is tax, tax as fast as they can.
We are watching a Prime Minister who is having to undo the decisions of his own Government in the space of just months but who cannot bring himself to apologise. The Government are already showing that they have failed to learn the lesson of all socialist Governments: they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. This Government seem determined to run out in record time, and the only losers will be the British people.
Lucy Powell
First of all, I congratulate Tottenham Hotspur and Crystal Palace football clubs on both winning silverware for the first time in a long time. North and south London celebrate, while both sides of Manchester commiserate.
The hon. Lady asks about an important subject. I can say now that the injunction has been lifted that, with the permission of Mr Speaker, the Defence Secretary will make a statement later today—probably at the end of business—on the future of the Diego Garcia military base following those developments.
I know that the whole House will want to send a very clear message that we condemn the brutal murder of the Israeli embassy staff in Washington overnight. We stand firmly together against antisemitism.
Today also marks the eighth anniversary of the Manchester Arena attack in my constituency. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those affected. I also want to put on record my reflection of the determination of Figen Murray and her campaign for Martyn’s law. I am really proud that it was this Labour Government and our Prime Minister who kept the promise to Figen to introduce Martyn’s law, which is now an Act of Parliament.
Today also marks a year since the general election was called—in the rain, which I think we all remember. Let us be honest, the rain is still pouring on the Conservatives. They do not seem to have learned very much. They might have thought on that day that things could not get any worse, but they are. I want to say to the hon. Lady that I very much respect her and enjoy working with her on the Modernisation Committee and across the House. I thank her for yet again stepping in at short notice to cover for the shadow Leader of the House, who is performing other parliamentary functions, but I am sure we will see him back soon.
The hon. Lady asks about grooming gangs. I want to be absolutely clear that this Government—myself included—want the victims and survivors to be at the heart of everything that we do. We want their terrible experiences to be acted on, and we want those responsible to be brought to justice. That is exactly what we are doing. We will leave no stone unturned in securing justice for the victims. First and foremost, they want action to be taken and the many recommendations of the previous national inquiry to be implemented, and we are doing that. In addition, Louise Casey’s full audit of these matters will be brought to this House in very short order.
The hon. Lady raises several issues relating to the economy, but it is worth reminding the House what we inherited and what we have had to deal with since we came into office. The Conservatives do not want to talk about it, but we had to fix the gaping hole that their party left in the public finances. Pay deals were on desks but were unfunded. Billions of pounds on asylum hotels were not accounted for. All the reserves were gone in July of the financial year, and new hospitals were nothing more than a work of fiction.
We had to come in, fix the economy and get economic stability back. Those who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes and when markets lose confidence are those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners and the poorest in society. It is also the value of people’s pensions that falls. We have acted on the £22 billion black hole, and we have got the economy going again.
The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but fixing the economy is exactly what we are doing. Growth is up. Interest rates have been cut four times since the general election. Half a million more people have moved into work since the election, and the UK is now the fastest growing European economy in the G7. Real wages have gone up for the first time in a decade, after the Conservatives left living standards falling for the first time in our history. We are fixing the mess that they left behind.
The hon. Lady asked about winter fuel payments. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, now that the economy is showing signs of recovery, because of the actions we have taken, we want to look at the threshold. First and foremost, we want to make sure that people feel the benefits of that economic growth and have more money in their pockets, and that includes pensions as well. However, we will not be making spending commitments without saying where the money is coming from, and it is right that those decisions are made in a future fiscal event, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.
A year on from that rainy day on Downing Street, it could not be clearer: the Conservatives are having an existential identity crisis. A year on from their worst defeat, they are still going backwards. They do not know who they are any more. They do not know what they stand for any more, and they do not know what they are even doing. They once proudly stood for free trade, and now they are against any trade deals. They used to claim to be the party of business, but in opposing our agreement with the EU, they are setting themselves against the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, UKHospitality and the Food and Drink Federation.
The Conservatives were once for levelling up and reindustrialisation of the north, but now they are against new energy infrastructure and the jobs of the future. They were once compassionate Conservatives who supported the NHS—I remember that very famously—but now they oppose the much-needed funding it is getting. A year on from that rainy day at Downing Street, they have not learned a thing, nor have they said sorry for the mess they left behind—whether that is the economy or prisons, which we heard about in the earlier statement. It is down to this Labour Government to clear up the mess that they left, fix the economy and public services, boost people’s living standards, cut immigration and get waiting lists down.
Business of the House
Debate between Joy Morrissey and Lucy Powell(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 3 February includes:
Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
Tuesday 4 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025.
Wednesday 5 February—Motions related to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 6 February—General debate on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 February will include:
Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Tuesday 11 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 13 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.
The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call Joy Morrissey, I think it appropriate to wish her a happy birthday.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the House will join me in offering thoughts and prayers for victims and their families following the collision this morning when an American Airlines plane crashed into the Potomac following a collision; but I believe that the Leader of the House will join me in rejoicing at the return of more of the Israeli hostages today.
It is an honour to respond to the right hon. Lady. Serving with her on the Modernisation Committee, I have observed the energy that she puts into bringing this House into the second quarter of the 21st century. We are lucky to have someone so persuasive in her position, someone who really listens to Members. [Hon. Members: “But—”] No buts, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I approach this session of business questions in that spirit. One innovation that would be very welcome would be a commitment from the Leader of the House to providing our dates for Opposition day debates, which we have still not received. Another extremely welcome innovation would be the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero finding time to reply to numerous letters sent by Opposition Members; perhaps the Leader of the House could persuade him to do so, but perhaps she would have more luck with the Chancellor.
As each week passes, our constituents face more and more negative consequences from the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. Last week the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been a staggering 47,000 drop in employment in December, the sharpest fall since the pandemic. Job vacancies have also collapsed. The day before the Chancellor’s Budget, in which she launched her attack on British businesses, there were 858,000 job vacancies in our economy; now the number has fallen to just 740,000, a drop of 14% in just two months. I know that she is proud of being the first female Chancellor, but would it not be even better for her to be known as the Chancellor who was brave enough to change course? Because of her Budget, business confidence has collapsed. Because of her Budget, growth has collapsed. Because of her Budget, employment is falling and unemployment is rising. Because of her Budget, UK gilt yields are at an eye-watering level. Because of her Budget, mortgage rates are now rising, despite her promise that she would bring them down.
We have seen a glimmer of hope with the Chancellor’s U-turn on her non-doms policy, which has caused some of the UK’s biggest taxpayers to flee her socialist nightmare. It is a welcome U-turn, but I feel for the Leader of the House and for Labour Members. I cannot imagine that they ever thought they would be explaining why a Labour Government had U-turned on punishing non-doms, but not on punishing pensioners. Will the Leader of the House seek to persuade the Chancellor to be bold, change course again, and spare British pensioners, farmers, businesses, workers and households from more economic pain?
May we have a debate in Government time to explore the many areas in which a Chancellor U-turn would indeed be welcome? If not, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on punishing pensioners, and reinstate their winter fuel payment? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to spare family farms that have put food on our tables from her tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to save businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth in this country from her catastrophic national insurance tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on her 1970s-style tax and borrowing spree, to protect the households that now face rising mortgage costs because of her? That is a task that I hope the Leader of the House will agree is in the interests of the House, its Members, and the people of this country.
Lucy Powell
All our thoughts are with those affected by the air crash in Washington DC. The scale of this tragedy is still unfolding, and we send our deepest sympathies to all those involved and those still carrying out the rescue operation.
This week saw the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. No one could ever forget visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I did with young people from my constituency with the Holocaust Educational Trust. We must never forget. I join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) in welcoming the further release of hostages in Israel and Gaza today.
Members will have noticed that Mr Speaker is not in his Chair today. I can assure them that he is not taking up a new acting role on the set of “Emmerdale”. He is instead celebrating the life of another northern legend, at the funeral of Lord Prescott.
I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to business questions, on her birthday. I very much welcome working with her on the Modernisation Committee. I have found her contributions to be greatly valuable and enlightening, and I know she does a really good job as a Whip and a constituency MP, supporting colleagues across the House. Given her contribution today, she could perhaps give a few tips to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), when he returns, because she has taken a very business questions-style approach. I will follow up with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if there are issues with correspondence.
The hon. Lady raised issues around the economy. I will gently remind her of a few stats. Inflation is down now, thanks to this Government. Wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years. We have created more than 70,000 jobs since we came into office, and business investment is at its highest level in 19 years. PwC has just rated the UK the second best place in the world to invest after the US. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD both predict that Britain will be Europe’s fastest-growing major economy in recent years.
This Government are getting on with the job, and it has been another week of delivering the change that people voted for. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be introduced today, with real action to tackle small boats and smuggling gangs, in contrast to the Conservatives’ costly Rwanda gimmick. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill gets its Second Reading next week. Despite promises from the Conservative party, it failed to bring that forward. That important piece of legislation will address the huge cost of fraud in our welfare system.
We have taken major strides to get growth going, taking the difficult, bold decisions that the hon. Lady asked for, many of them on issues that have been raised in business questions over recent weeks. They include the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, creating the UK’s answer to silicon valley; the redevelopment of the huge site around the Old Trafford football ground, which even I can welcome, as a City fan; and, thanks to the tireless campaigning of Mr Doncaster Airport himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), their airport is set to become thriving once again. We are backing airport expansion across the congested south-east.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) will be over the moon that we are investing in Cornwall’s mineral industry, which he has raised with me many times. We are giving the go-ahead to the lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) has long championed and raised with me. We are supporting Port Talbot and Teesside through the advanced fuels fund and Wrexham and Flintshire through the advanced manufacturing investment zone. We are building nine reservoirs—the first in 30 years—to provide water for new homes.
We are reviewing the Green Book, to enable better public investment and growth outside London and the south-east. We are taking difficult decisions, some of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised, because we had to fix the foundations to get our country growing again, so that we can invest in the public services that people desperately need and voted for at the last election.
Business of the House
Debate between Joy Morrissey and Lucy Powell(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I did not know that so many people come to Cleethorpes for Armed Forces Day—it sounds like a real occasion. I will certainly make sure that the Ministry of Defence hears my hon. Friend’s plea. Cleethorpes sounds like a very good place for National Armed Forces Day in 2026.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has called in a planning application for the Marlow film studio, which had already been rejected by thousands of local residents, planning officers and the council. This is the wrong development in the wrong place, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on how the views of local people on planning can be retained before the Labour party concretes over the entire green belt?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation. This Government are unashamedly pro-house building and pro-cutting the red tape that stands in the way of business and business investment in our creative industries, our technologies and our transport, but we are absolutely on the side of local people as well, which is why our planning reforms put local voice and local plans at their centre. We have had debates on the issue, and I am sure that we will have many more in the coming weeks.
Building Safety Bill
Debate between Joy Morrissey and Lucy PowellWednesday 21st July 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Leaseholders have very little recourse and, from the announcements today, their passage of recourse remains incredibly uncertain.
Let me start with what is in the Bill. The first major change sets up the building safety regulator, a key recommendation of the Hackitt report. The regulator will oversee “higher risk buildings,” which have been defined as essentially over 18 metres. The Select Committee raised questions about whether the scope should be extended. The Fire Brigades Union says that 11 metres or four storeys would be a safer threshold, as that is the threshold that firefighters can reach with their ladders. The Secretary of State himself said last year that we should not rely on
“crude height limits with binary consequences,”
that do not
“reflect the complexity of the challenge at hand.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 24.]
The two-tiered system this Bill creates is particularly stark when we look at privatised building control, which will continue to operate below 18 metres. The Hackitt report recognised that choice over building control inspection is a major weakness in the current system, allowing cosy relationships to flourish between developers and the private inspectors they pay handsomely.
The regulator will be the building control body for taller buildings, but not for those under 18 metres, even where other risks could remain. The Government should think again about their arbitrary definition of high-risk buildings.
Secondly, this Bill establishes clear responsibilities for building safety throughout a building’s life, in a golden thread of information. Lack of transparency was a key issue identified in the Hackitt report. The Grenfell inquiry has exposed how some building owners belittled residents as troublemakers rather than keeping them informed about the safety of their homes. The new system must be fully open and transparent to residents and leaseholders.
The need for transparency extends to the testing regime, which the Hackitt report found to be opaque and insufficient. While the Bill sets a framework for the regulation of construction products, the Government have kicked the issue of product testing down the road. This must be re-examined.
Thirdly, the Bill sets up limited mechanisms to recoup costs from developers, through legal action and a levy. The principle of the polluter must pay should apply to the building safety scandal. Labour has long been calling on the Government to take stronger action against developers who cut dangerous corners.
Extending the period in which a developer can be sued is welcome, but residents in many buildings will not be able to take advantage. The relationship of leaseholders and developers is like David and Goliath. Legal action is uncertain, expensive and risky, requiring money that leaseholders simply do not have. It also requires that a company still exists to sue, yet many have disappeared. What is more, given what we know from the Hackitt report and elsewhere, in how many cases can all the blame be legally pinned on a developer, given the failures of the regulatory regime at the time? Very few, I would imagine.
Finally, the Bill makes some changes around the new homes and social housing ombudsmen. After significant delay, some social housing reforms have finally come through, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that the social housing regulator has real teeth?
Although there are things we welcome in the Bill that will improve building safety into the future, there are, as I am sure we will hear from Members across the House, serious concerns about what is missing and the way in which ruinous costs for remediation works will still fall on leaseholders. What began as a cladding scandal after Grenfell has now led to a total breakdown in confidence in most tall and multi-storey buildings. This has now become a building safety crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Young, first-time buyers have gone bankrupt. Couples have put having children on hold. Marriages have broken down. Life savings and assets have gone. Retirements have been ruined. The mental health and financial toll is incalculable.
Fundamentally, the Bill betrays leaseholders who will still face life-changing costs for problems that they did not create and who are trapped in unsellable, uninsurable and unmortgageable homes, notwithstanding some of the Secretary of State’s announcements today, which I fear will do little to resolve the situation. Two Prime Ministers, his two immediate predecessors and the Secretary of State himself have all said that leaseholders should not pay. I agree—I think we all agree in here—so why does the Bill not say it? On at least 17 different occasions in this House, they promised, even to their own Back Benchers, that they would protect leaseholders. We heard during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 that the Building Safety Bill was the place to do so, so where is it? It is not in there.
What is more, legal advice on what is in the Bill says that the betrayal of leaseholders is even worse. As drafted, the Bill bakes in leaseholders’ potential liability. Our legal advice is that clause 124 provides very little additional protections. Their legal opinion is that this Bill in its totality, including clause 99, makes it
“more certain that remediation costs will fall under service charges”—
and be passed on. So on the Government’s fundamental promise to leaseholders, the Bill fails. No wonder they are furious, and bereft.
Of course, I welcome the building safety fund; it is a good thing, and it could provide a solution for many buildings. I have to commend the Secretary of State on getting £5.1 billion out of the Chancellor—he seems to have better negotiating skills than his boss, the Prime Minister. It is a lot of money and it could go some way to resolving the situation if it is properly used, but I do not understand why his financial commitment is not being met with the same zeal and determination to give it proper effect. His approach has so far been blighted by inertia and indifference and is now beset by increasing costs, relying on those in the industry who have created much of this mess to get us out of it. I have to tell him that it is just not working. Even his own Back Benchers accused him of “shocking incompetence”, and I feel that that view might be spreading after today’s shenanigans with his statement.
Let me explain: the scope of the fund is way too narrow and the deadlines for applying too tight, and yet it is being administered far too slowly, with just 12p in every pound of the fund allocated. At its current pace, it will be 2027 before the fund is even allocated. And because there is no grip on the wider issues, as we have been discussing today—such as risk, cost, work quality, accountability and sign-off—nearly all multi-storey buildings are now affected. Even when cladding is removed, a new, ever-growing list of additional seemingly necessary works are added. This means that innocent and drained leaseholders are constantly at the mercy of a system, with no accountability and no confidence in it, with an industry unable to take on risk, cornering a broken market for works, arguing over responsibility and unwilling to insure, mortgage or step up, all the while leaving leaseholders carrying the can. That is why this crisis is now affecting so many and costs keep going up. The truth is that all sense of appropriate risk has gone out of the system. The Secretary of State has talked about that today, and I have heard him say it many times before, but I am not sure what he is doing about it. Notwithstanding what is in his statement today, I still do not know whether this will provide the transparency, the recourse, or the scrutiny that leaseholders need. He says that there should be a clear route for residents to challenge. What would that route be? How would it work? What teeth would it have? He said that there will be more guidelines. What are they? When will they be published? Can we see them? Will this really have the effect that leaseholders need it to have, because time is a luxury that these homeowners simply do not have.
This is not just about the one-off high remediation costs that homeowners are facing today; it is that insurance premiums have gone through the roof, service charges are rocketing, and the waking watch, which we have heard so much about, and other costs are leaving leaseholders paying hundreds of pounds a month extra already.
Recent Government guidance has made the situation worse. Their advice note from January 2020 effectively brought all buildings of any height into scope of the dreaded EWS1 form. After today’s announcement, is that now scrapped? Does that guidance note still exist? [Interruption.] I do not know whether it is in the statement. I did not read it in there. The Secretary of State is pointing to it from a sedentary position. If it is in there, people need to know that now so that we can discuss it, and we should have known it before this debate; it is a very important thing to know. If he wants to come to the Dispatch Box to tell us whether that January 2020 advice note is now effectively scrapped, he can do so, because it is essential that people know that.
Joy Morrissey
I am not completely positive, but it did say in the statement that the EWS1 form should not be required in buildings of 18 metres, which is a welcome change. Common sense seems to be prevailing in this debate now. I welcome that announcement. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is something that we have been campaigning on for quite some time and that it is a welcome change to the legislation.
Lucy Powell
Well, it is not actually legislation. The hon. Lady is wrong about that. Yes, of course, we would welcome that. The crucial words that she said there were “should not”, not would not, and that is a different thing entirely. We still need to know on what terms that will be enforced, what recourse would a leaseholder have, and to whom, and what teeth will they have in order to put that into effect. Is it legislation? [Interruption.] I think the Secretary of State is trying to tell me that it is going to be legislation. [Interruption.] Oh, it is just down to the lenders. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Joy Morrissey and Lucy Powell(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)