Mr Clive Betts
MP for Sheffield South East · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the Public Accounts Committee Chair said, we have had Capita before the Committee on many occasions. In all my time in the House, I do not think I have seen a worse example of incompetence, failure to deliver to deadlines, and a company seemingly just not caring about its effects on people and the distress it is causing.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, I congratulate the Minister on what she said about looking into bringing the scheme in house; it is a pity the previous Government did not think about that before they let the contract. Will she commit to updating the House regularly on how far she is progressing with those possibilities?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. We have talked about this issue for so many years, and it is time that we got on with it and tried to get cross-party agreement.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I particularly welcome the element of the Secretary of State’s statement about improvements to social care, which some of us have been campaigning for in this House for more years than we care to remember.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions.”
House of Commons8 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I offer two congratulations: first, to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the First Secretary, on her well-deserved promotion—I am sure she will do an excellent job. Secondly, I congratulate her and the Prime Minister for their real commitment to devolution, which I have wanted to see for an awfully long time.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
4,714 held · 4,713 searchable for Mr Clive Betts. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I will reflect on what the Minister said. I will perhaps do so at a future date, but I will not move it at this stage. Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 Duty not to change crest, home shirt colours or name without approval Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 52, page 42, line 28, at end insert— “(9A) The starting point for calculation of the levy payment under subsection (9) applicable to a particular club shall be a percentage of its annual revenue.””
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a fairly simple clarifying amendment. As we have heard, smaller clubs feel that regulation must be proportionate and that there should be more requirements on very wealthy clubs, because they have the staff and resources to deal with that. Smaller clubs may find the whole issue of regulation very challenging, so amendment 30 simply says that the levy they will have to pay should be a percentage of annual revenue; in other words, a proportionate basis for the levy should be written into the Bill. The Minister may say that that will happen anyway—that that it is what the regulator will do—but the issue is a concern for smaller clubs, and the amendment 30 is an attempt to highlight and deal with it.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 55, page 45, line 1, leave out paragraph (b). This amendment allows the regulator to consider the effect of “parachute” payments when assessing the distribution of revenue between competition organisers.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could I ask for a bit of advice, Ms Nokes? I have a selection list that says that new clause 4, which I also tabled, should be debated with amendment 27, but another selection list says that it should be debated under clause 56. There seems to be some discrepancy. It would be helpful if you could provide an explanation.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for that clarification—I am sorry for mixing myself up. Let us get down to the issue of parachute payments, which almost everyone spoke about on Second Reading, and which the Minister seems to believe should be treated as a given in their current form, with no change. I think he has the support of the Premier League—or some clubs in the Premier League, because it is by no means certain that the Premier League speaks with one voice on these issues. But it clearly is a very important issue. I am calling for the removal of clause 55(2)(b), which stops the regulator, as the backstop, being able to consider removing or changing parachute payments in their current form. Under the regulator’s remit, they have to be treated as a given.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am talking about parachute payments that currently exist, which is what the Bill refers to—I do not think it refers to parachute payments that might exist in the future in some other arrangement.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The position under the Bill as drafted is that that cannot happen, because it is fixed as it is and cannot be changed by the regulator. The Minister will probably say that the leagues themselves could come to an agreement and change it. What happens if they do not do that? There has not been much evidence of the leagues being able to reach an agreement for a long period of time now—that is why we are here debating this Bill. In the end, it is down to the backstop. That backstop, the regulator, needs to have the flexibility to address these very important measures.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not reasonable to say to the regulator, “The only thing that matters is parachute payments to protect clubs that get relegated and you should have no regard to the impact on the clubs already in that league.” I hope that the Minister will consider this seriously. It is obviously a concern across the House, as was reflected on Second Reading. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East on the Front Bench has a slightly different way of addressing the issue, but the wording in her amendment 31 relates to what I have just said. Yes, parachute payments and the impact on the clubs that receive them must be taken into account, but the impact on other clubs that must compete with them must also be taken into account.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been said over and over again that Championship clubs are getting completely overstretched, because the holy grail of promotion to the Premier League means that clubs try to extend their budgets beyond what is reasonable. Owners put in large sums of their own money, often beyond what is reasonable and sustainable, in order to compete with clubs with parachute payments, and the difference is enormous. Parachute payment clubs will come down with budgets three times the size of those of many other clubs in that league, so in order to compete clubs often do fairly stupid things to try to ensure that promotion becomes a possibility. My amendment says that the regulator ought to take account of those issues.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think that anyone I have met who has talked about this issue has said, “You cannot have parachute payments.” They say that it must be looked at in terms of the totality of the game and the distribution of money. I would understand, very quickly, that a club going up into the Premier League faces an enormous difference between the wage bill it had before being promoted and the wage bill it will need once promoted, and it must have some reassurance on what happens if it gets relegated. That is an understandable situation, but we must also take into account the impact on the finances of clubs in the same division as the relegated clubs and their ability to compete.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the Premier League talks about its generosity to the game, it is talking about generosity to a handful of clubs that have just been in the Premier League. That is not a real position. When we look at the distribution of the media money overall, we find that 92% goes to 25 clubs—namely, the Premier League clubs and five others that have been in and out of the Premier League in the recent past. That is not sustainable, and if a reasonable and fair distribution of money should be agreed in the future, the regulator must have the power to take that into account. I have also said to the Minister that we ought to look at not just the importance of parachute payments to the clubs that receive them.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That just does not chime as an appropriate situation for the Government to get themselves into compared with everything else that they have said about the Bill. The regulator needs to be independent and have discretion, but on this issue it is not allowed to have the freedom to look at the situation, particularly with regard to the state of the game report. If the regulator believes that it is necessary to revisit the issue of parachute payments in order for income in football to be distributed properly and appropriately, and for it to be sustainable not just for individual clubs but for the whole of the football pyramid, this proposal is a significant mistake. We must recognise that 80% of what the Premier League gives to the EFL is in parachute payments to a handful of clubs.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The point I was going to go on to make was that I am not suggesting that parachute payments should never be allowed under any income redistribution. That is not the case. My amendment does not say, “No parachute payments”. It says that parachute payments can be considered as part of the overall distribution of finances within the game. The Bill as drafted states that parachute payments are exempt from consideration at the backstop stage—full stop, end of story. Everything else, including media income, can be considered, but not parachute payments. That seems strange, given that the Minister has repeatedly said that the independence of the regulator needs to be preserved and recognised, and yet on this key issue its hands are being specifically and absolutely tied.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That really is not a sustainable position for the clubs receiving those, for the clubs that are trying to compete with them, for the competitiveness of the game, or for the sustainability of the pyramid as a whole. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this because it is an issue that really needs addressing.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. I just made the point about the enormous difference in budgets that Championship clubs now experience because of that. Of course, when we look at this season of the Championship, three out of the top four clubs have received parachute payments. Yes, other clubs, such as Ipswich, have done remarkably well without them, but clubs are always trying to compete with those clubs receiving the payments. Last year, two of the three clubs that came up had parachute payments, and it is now almost becoming a cycle of clubs getting parachute payments, going back up, then sometimes being relegated, and then getting another lot of parachute payments.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it not one of the great strengths of the English pyramid that there is, or should be, the ability for clubs to move around? If there are massive differences in the financial capabilities of the clubs that come down from the Premier League with a view to going back up again very quickly and the other Championship clubs, that effectively removes the element of competition and removes the prospect of promotion from so many clubs that it changes the fundamental nature of the pyramid. Surely that goes against one of the objectives that the Bill is trying to achieve.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Premier League’s objective in having parachute payments protected in this way is to ensure they that continue, while the issue of the pyramid and more competition lower down is met by even more money from the Premier League to the EFL, irrespective of parachute payments? It seems to me that that is not its position; it actually wants to hang on to as much money as it can for Premier League clubs and to protect parachute payments too. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the multitude of issues surrounding competition between clubs in different leagues, but the fact that we cannot solve everything with this amendment does not mean that we should not address one of the problems.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would help if the Minister was clear on what he was suggesting the regulator should do to deal with the massive gap between the clubs with parachute payments and those in the Championship without. Is he suggesting that the regulator should come in and tell clubs with parachute payments, “You have got them, but you cannot actually spend them, or not all of them, because that is distorting competition”? It seems a very odd way to try to deal with the problem.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could the Minister explain what he has just said? I still do not understand how it is going to work. On the regulator’s powers to deal with the problem created by parachute payments, which he accepts could be created, what exactly are those powers? How does he expect the regulator to use them?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2A) The IFR can only make such rules if it can be satisfied that their inclusion furthers its objectives under section 6 by protecting and promoting— (a) the financial soundness of regulated clubs, and (b) the financial resilience of English football. (2B) The IFR should also have regard when making any rules under section 7 to act in such a way that avoids any— (a) effects on sporting competitiveness of any regulated club against another regulated club, (b) adverse effects on the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs, and (c) adverse effects on financial investment in English football.”— (Stephanie Peacock.) Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments, I must say. I think that we will be giving further consideration to this, as I hope the Minister will, and that we will come back to this issue on another occasion. I just hope that, by the time we come back, the Minister might be able to better explain the powers of the regulator to smooth out the issues where there are problems for Championship clubs trying to compete with those clubs with parachute payments. I was not convinced about that point from his arguments, but we will consider that further at another stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 31, in clause 55, page 45, line 3, at end insert— “unless the IFR specifies otherwise in rules.”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the regulator will not be there to protect the pyramid, what will it be there for?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a really important clause. There have been so many problems in so many clubs where actions have happened but there is some mystique about who is responsible. The mystique is often deliberate, to hide the real owners and what they are doing. Although this will be the rule from now on, one issue that I can see arising is about what happens when a league wants to look at who was responsible for the actions of a club in past months and years. Will there be a trail to discover who the owner was in past months and years, so that that sort of action can be taken by the leagues?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can I just raise two issues? The first is about appointments to the board. Does the Minister feel that the issue of conflict of interest is important? Does he feel that he ought to be setting down somewhere what conflicts of interest may amount to, and what may disqualify someone from being a member of the regulator’s board? Secondly—this issue arises in Select Committees from time to time—will the regulator’s chair be subject to a pre-confirmation hearing by the Select Committee?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am interested in what the Minister says about the sustainability of the football pyramid. If a particular measure on the distribution of funding affects other clubs and those in the pyramid that receive that money, that could be construed as posing a risk to the pyramid and might fall within the remit of clause 6(b).”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am interested in the Minister’s definition of heritage. So far he has talked about the heritage of English football clubs, not the wider game, and that is quite interesting. Does he accept, for example, that the FA cup is very much part of the heritage of football in this country, and therefore the regulator ought to be able to give some thought to that competition and its future?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They want us to recognise that and to give some assurance that such decisions will not be taken with their interests cast to one side, as though they simply do not matter.”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister’s answer with regard to the FA cup will disappoint many football fans. Football fans look to us to address things that matter to them, and the Minister is right that many fans were outraged at the decision taken with no consultation—not even proper consultation with the EFL and other leagues—to simply abandon FA cup replays. We could all wax lyrical about the FA cup replay matches we have been to. Those are the ones I remember, and I refer again back to the 1970s, when Sheffield Wednesday, a third-tier club, had four FA cup replays with Arsenal, which was then in the top tier. I remember every one of those games—I went to four of them at least—because they were a unique experience, and that is what many fans feel.”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me put a scenario to the Minister that involves not just FA cup replays, because I suppose that decision could be reversed; it would not be too difficult to manage if we got to the point where we wanted that to happen. Let us say there is a scenario—it nearly happened a few years ago—in which the Premier League decides to create a Premier League Two, then pulls the drawbridge up and stops relegation from that league. What would happen then? Would the Minister say, “That is terrible. I am getting a lot of letters and emails and people stopping me in the street; I cannot do anything about it and the regulator has no power”? Indeed, would the regulator have a power to intervene at that point, because that would be a major disruption to the whole structure and pyramid of English football?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should always be cautious when we look at regulation. Without drawing you into the debate, Sir Christopher, I am sure that you would echo that point. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is a bit of conflict in the Government’s argument. Why are we here today with the Bill in terms of regulation? One of the reasons why is that a handful of clubs decided that they wanted to break away into a European super league, so the Bill specifically mentions clubs not being able to simply up roots and go into a different league without permission. The Bill legislates for and gives the regulator powers over new competitions and which clubs may enter into them, but no powers over existing competitions and how they may be changed.”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was thinking of moving my amendment from the Chair and then I could have directed the Minister to agree with it. [ Laughter. ] This proposal would feel very strange, as Ben Wright from the PFA said this morning, without the two groups of people who are absolutely key to football. We can manage without owners and directors, but we cannot manage without fans and players, and they are not mentioned in this part of the Bill. Will the Minister give us some comfort at least about how that particular point will be addressed?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is saying that this is a job for the leagues and the clubs. One problem with the legislation—it relates to the point made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby—is that clubs consult their own supporters. The real argument in the Premier League a few years ago was about the price of tickets for away supporters. How do clubs consult on that? Why should not the regulator, in looking at the sustainability of the game, consider the impact on the future of the game of pricing out away supporters?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on football. I do not think it necessary to declare, but at least it is there on the record in case anyone wants to know that.”
House of Commons14 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As quite a lot of Members wish to speak, the Front Benchers have kindly agreed to keep their contributions to eight minutes, which means that I can allow six minutes to Back-Bench Members. That is advisory, but please do not go over; if Members go over that limit, I will start to intervene to keep us to it.”
House of Commons7 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all colleagues for being so co-operative in terms of the time. I will call the Front Benchers now, starting with the Scottish National party spokesperson.”
House of Commons7 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The real concern now is that Netanyahu has one objective, which is to raze Gaza to the ground. That is what he is intent on doing, and it will include Rafah. This Government, along with all other western Governments, have told the Israelis that they must not go into Rafah. I ask the Minister once again: what are the consequences if they do? Will it be a slap on the wrist and a “Don’t do it again”, or is serious consideration being given to banning the sale of arms and to sanctioning individuals and the Israeli Government collectively? What are the Government going to do? Are they going to do anything at all?”
House of Commons7 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister assure us that proper energy efficiency standards will be contained in the decent homes standard? Otherwise, tenants will still be living in damp and cold homes because they will be unable to afford to heat them.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has tried to blame the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for this delay by saying that we noted that there was a problem in the courts, which would need to be ready to deal with the extra work caused by the abolition of section 21. However, the Government have had five years to sort the courts out and get them working properly. Surely that has been planned for right from the last election. On the Select Committee asking for improvements to the courts, I just point out that we asked for a specialist housing court—a bit like a small claims court—that could process things more quickly. We did not ask for that in our report last year; we asked for it in 2018, and the Government rejected it.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Resources do not produce extra staff overnight, so local authorities will need advance warning so that we have the staff in place to respond quickly.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once section 21 goes, tenants who are currently frightened—even those living in appalling damp properties—to make complaints against their landlords, because they are concerned they would be evicted as soon as a complaint is made, will feel emboldened to make that complaint, and if their complaint is not listened to, they will be emboldened to go to their local authority and ask for help. Local authorities will get more requests for help, and they have not got the people to deal with that. Will the Minister assure us that he is starting to talk to the Local Government Association about the new burdens that will be placed on local authorities—this is a new burden that we are imposing on them, albeit a good one—and that there is some agreement on the resource that will be needed?”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry, but I have no conviction that, with several months of looking at this, several years of contemplation and plans for action, the courts will be any quicker in two or three years than they are now. The court system has delays, and they are likely to remain, so we need to look a bit beyond the existing system to resolve these problems. Obviously, Ministers have set their minds against that. I turn to the other main problem that we highlighted on implementation: local authorities and their staff. We know that local authorities are desperately short of staff for enforcement in the private rented sector.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, covid has affected lots of public services, but I say to the Minister that it is not a surprise. If we look at how long it was taking local authorities to get court hearings to deal with antisocial behaviour cases before covid, we see even then that those ran into months. It has been a problem in the courts for many years. That is why the Committee has suggested—it has been suggested before—a housing court system. I know that Ministers do not want it and that the Ministry of Justice does not want it, but it seemed to us a way of resolving what are often simple or quick problems. A small claims court format could do it in many cases without the need for lawyers to be introduced.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not merely that; it is also so that they know, if they do not have a car, that they can get on the bus to their place of work in the morning—if the landlord evicts them and they have to move home, will they be able to get to that job in the future? It is also about children at school: will those children be able to get to the same school if they are evicted from their home and have to find a new property? That is the sort of family certainty that the abolition of section 21 will introduce. So many families are living in uncertainty—not just housing uncertainty but other uncertainty—while we await that abolition. The Minister needs to get on with it and give us some clear time commitments on when it will happen. We have just discussed the problem of the courts.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is disappointing that we are having to focus primarily on the Government back-pedalling on the timetable for the abolition of section 21. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at this a year ago and concluded unanimously that the principle of the Government’s intention was right. We had some reservations and caveats, and we raised concerns and suggested detail changes, but nevertheless we agreed on the principle. Generally speaking, there is agreement across the House that it is the right thing to do. In the meantime, people are living in uncertainty in private rented housing. That is why we thought it was the right thing to do. That is what the measure is for: to give people greater certainty about where they will be living in a year’s time.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the Minister saying that selective licensing and the property portal are not the same thing, with the property portal to be there for all properties. Selective licensing—it is in the name—will be there for some properties. When there is a review of selective licensing and the relationship with the property portal, will the proposals come back to the House for consideration at some point? I want reassurance on that. Many of us support selective licensing, which we see operating against the worst landlords and the worst properties, and we hope that there will not be a diminution of those powers and responsibilities that would weaken what it can achieve.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those skills are slightly different in some cases, but why not let it get on with that, and tell it now that it will have that job to do? I have a couple of other points. The property portal is a really welcome development. We know that when someone is trying to track down a landlord—it is often a local authority, which wants to serve a notice on them—suddenly, the ownership of the property moves, and a different member of the family becomes an owner, or a different company is set up. To know who owns the property, information will have to be given to the property portal, along with all other information about the property. That is a really important step forward, as well as making sure that the portals are digitised so that the information can be kept up to date simply.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is sometimes a bit of a conflict between whether someone goes to the ombudsman or to the courts—sometimes, the ombudsman will not deal with a case if it is in the courts. It would be helpful to clarify those issues. But why does he not just decide that the housing ombudsman, who currently deals with social housing issues, will also deal with private sector housing? He should make that decision. Again, if the ombudsman is to have that responsibility, it needs to gear up by starting to recruit more staff and getting in resources to be able to do it. It is a simple decision. He has not ruled it out, but he has not ruled it in. Can we not just do it? It seems obvious. Why set up another body, which would have to start from scratch, when the ombudsman has the skills to do it?”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the reality is that local authorities are generally short of resources right through, as the Committee’s recent report on local authority funding—again, it was unanimously agreed—showed. Because of the demands of social care on local authority budgets, other services are often cut even more than the mainstream. We have previously looked at trading standards and consumer protection, which are an important element—the hon. Member is absolutely right—and I hope that they will be factored in when we have the new burdens discussions. There are some things that the Minister could resolve fairly quickly. He referred to the important role that the ombudsman can play in resolving disputes.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have tabled amendment 52 and the related amendments because the National Housing Federation is concerned that social landlords think they have powers, but they do not exist where the initial tenancy with their secure tenant was set up by a nomination from a local authority. It is a complicated legal issue, but an important one.”
House of Commons24 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗