Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission.”
“Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory.”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such m…”
“I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day.”
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following.”
“That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used…”
The complete record
Every one of 6,304 lines we hold for Hilary Benn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 127.
“Given that councils have a statutory responsibility to set a balanced annual budget, even the further help announced last week will not be enough for councils like Leeds and many others. I urge the Chancellor to look again at what the Treasury can do to help fill the remaining gap, which in the case of Leeds is £63 million, because without further assistance the council will, by law, have to start cutting jobs, and those could include non-statutory services that have been so important in providing support to communities affected by covid.”
“I, too, warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I assume that when he talks about the powers applying around the world, it means they will be open to individuals from any country, not just those on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s list of countries of concern. On corruption, he says he wants to extend the regime. He will be aware that, over a decade ago, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was used to seize the assets of three former Nigerian state governors. It would be helpful if he told the House what further powers he is considering to bring corruption within the scope of the arrangements that he has just announced.”
“Sir Mark Sedwill steps down at the end of September and will be replaced as National Security Adviser by David Frost, who will also remain the EU chief negotiator, which he says will be his “top single priority” until the negotiations have concluded. If the negotiations carry on into October and beyond, who will have the nation’s security as their top single priority, or is this just a case of misapplied persistent experimentation?”
“The Government’s decision to abandon the introduction of full customs checks and controls on EU imports from 1 January is a recognition that firms are simply not ready, yet the right hon. Gentleman knows that, regardless of whether an agreement is reached with the EU or not, British businesses will face checks, controls and red tape on exports to the EU from January. Given his decision, and given coronavirus, why does he think British businesses will be able to cope with that?”
“We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on economic forecasts, but given the growing warnings from business—the latest today has come from the CBI—he must be aware of the damage that would be inflicted on businesses by red tape, tariffs and loss of access if there is no agreement reached with the European Union in the next four months. We all want a deal, but, with British businesses already reeling from coronavirus, what does he propose to say to those businesses come January if the Government’s gamble does not pay off?”
“Article 131 of the political declaration states that if a dispute raises a question of interpretation of Union law, “the arbitration panel should refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union…for a binding ruling as regards the interpretation of Union law.” Given what the Minister just said, do the Government still stand by the commitment that the Prime Minister signed up to in October?”
“The document to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred makes it clear that the Government want an agreement that involves no tariffs, but in the interests of transparency, will he explain to the House why the Government are prepared to contemplate tariffs being imposed from 1 January next year, when he will know that the president of the National Farmers Union has described that prospect as catastrophic for the industry, and that only this week the chief operating officer of Nissan has warned that the Sunderland plant would not be sustainable if tariffs on car exports transpire?”
“The hon. Gentleman has set out the clear Government policy that they will not accept the adjudication of the European Court of Justice, but in any agreement—and we all hope an agreement is reached—there will have to be a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be helpful if he could tell the House his views on what kind of mechanism that would be and whether there might be a place within that for independent arbitration to deal with disputes. Given that he has just argued that EU member states have got away with state aid to the disadvantage of the UK, is he satisfied that the Government are asking for sufficient reassurance from the European Union that that will not happen in future under any agreement that is reached?”
“We all hope there will be an exit agreement with the EU, but if there is not, how will the Government stop goods, such as cars made in the EU, which in those circumstances would attract a 10% tariff, from entering Great Britain tariff-free via Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that goods would have unfettered access moving from Northern Ireland to GB. Would there in fact have to be checks if people tried to do that?”
“Many teachers and school staff are anxious about a return to class, especially those who have medical conditions or who are living with someone who is shielding. I understand that it will not be a requirement, but can the Secretary of State clarify whether if, for reassurance, staff at times want to wear face coverings and/or visors, they are perfectly free to do so?”
“It seems increasingly likely that part of what will be required to tackle this virus in the future will be the wearing of masks by members of the public in certain situations. If the Government concludes, on the basis of scientific advice, that that should be recommended, will it be their policy to provide masks to the public, and if so what is the Secretary of State’s plan to source them, bearing in mind the difficulties with PPE supply? Or will members of the public be expected to source their own?”
“We have already heard about the huge increase in applications for universal credit, and whatever measures the Chancellor comes forward with to help the self-employed will take time to implement. What is the Government’s plan to help people who have no job, no income and no savings, in circumstances where they do not have any money at all to buy food? What will the Government do to make sure that no family goes hungry?”
“The Foreign Secretary rightly said that the Government do not want British nationals to be stranded overseas, but has referred to the practical difficulties of getting them all home. What are the exceptional circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to act to bring British nationals home? That will help inform decisions that individuals make about any travel plans they have.”
“Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is now the Government’s wish, subject to capacity being available, to test all those with symptoms who are at home? If so, as the capacity ramps up, how does he intend to prioritise tests of people living at home, potentially with the disease?”
“I welcome the £1 billion cladding fund that was announced yesterday. It is a start, but as the Secretary of State knows, the devil is in the detail. May I encourage him to set up a contact group with representatives of leaseholders, freeholders, managing agents, fire services, local authorities, mortgage companies and his officials, perhaps chaired by the Housing Minister, to work through that detail so that it does not take another two and a half years for all the unsafe cladding to be removed?”
“Earlier this week, the Secretary of State told the House that the NHS requires more ventilators. He will be aware that two weeks ago today Italy had the same number of confirmed cases as we have, and he will also be aware of the great pressure that intensive care units and hospitals in Italy are under. Can he tell us whether the additional ventilators that he is seeking will arrive with the NHS in time to cope with any rapid increase in the number of critically ill patients who require breathing support?”
“A study of 52 critically ill patients at Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan has found that more than two thirds required invasive breathing support, and last Monday, as the Secretary of State will know, the World Health Organisation urged all countries to stock up on ventilators. Given that around 5% of those with coronavirus might require critical care, what is his current best estimate of the number of ventilators that would be required to meet that demand, bearing in mind his earlier point about having sufficient staff to operate the ventilators?”
“On when to move to the delay phase, the Secretary of State said that he was “mindful of scientific advice that reacting too early…carries its own risks”. Could he set out for the House what those risks are?”
“Were any complaints received by Downing Street in respect of the conduct of the current Home Secretary when she was Secretary of State for International Development or when she was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and if so, were they investigated?”
“The right hon. Gentleman referred to other deals that he is hoping to emulate. He will be aware that the EU’s deal with South Korea took eight years from the start of negotiations to implementation and that the Canada deal took seven. Given that the Government are seeking a much more comprehensive arrangement than either of those, his optimism that it can be done and ratified in 10 months remains to be proven, but will he confirm that if it is not possible to conclude a deal, we will exit the transition period on 31 December with no agreement whatsoever?”
“We heard what the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) about a person who is self-isolating keeping away from other family members, but what is the advice to the other family members about whether they should go about their normal business—go to work or go to school if they are children—in those circumstances?”
“Amid the grim litany of war crimes in the Syrian civil war, the continued deliberate bombing of hospitals is particularly shocking. I applaud the Government’s humanitarian effort—as I am sure the whole House does—but the more we and international allies and the UN call for a ceasefire and are ignored, the more we demonstrate that we are completely unable to protect the civilians on the receiving end of those bombs. Have there been any recent discussions with allies about whether a no-fly zone could make a contribution to the protection of those civilians?”
“Their home has been rendered completely worthless, therefore they cannot re-mortgage. Their insurance premium is, in all likelihood, going up, and they worry about possibly being made bankrupt because of all the costs. That could result, depending on what job they do, in the loss of their job as well as their home. Yet none of that is in any way the fault, responsibility or doing of the leaseholders.”
“It is from their managing agent, and it tells them: “Your home is in a building that has now been judged a fire risk because of unsafe cladding, and as a leaseholder you must immediately—this day—start paying for a waking watch. Otherwise, all of you will have to move out of your homes.” In one case in Leeds, such a waking watch is costing each flat-owner £670 a month plus VAT, on top of mortgage payments and the service charge. The leaseholder is probably then asked to meet the cost of putting in a fire alarm system, which may or may not reduce the cost of the waking watch. Then, to their absolute horror, they are asked to pay for the cost of replacing the dangerous cladding to make their building—their home—safe. The problem is pretty obvious to us all: they simply do not have that kind of money.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered leaseholders and cladding. May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies? I am grateful to all colleagues present. I know that a number will wish to intervene, but the more interventions there are, the longer I will take to complete my argument, which I am keen that the Minister should hear. I think the turnout shows her the strength of feeling on this issue. It is not difficult to understand why there are strong feelings. Imagine that someone has saved up all their money and bought their first flat. It is the home of their dreams. They move in, the future beckons, and then one day a letter drops on the mat.”
“My hon. Friend is correct: there is a fundamental unfairness in the treatment of different types of leaseholders. That is the argument that I will make. As we have just heard from two colleagues, a growing number of our constituents face this problem—in my case, leaseholders from St George’s building and a number of blocks in Leeds Dock and Timble Beck, who have other types of dangerous cladding. I pay tribute to the Leeds Cladding Scandal group, to all the other groups that have been organised up and down the country, and to the very aptly named Manchester Cladiators, who have really got organised. That name tells us how determined they are to win.”
“I agree completely, and I hope that today’s debate is part of the dialogue that has already begun. Leaseholders want to feel that they are being listened to, and they want to be able to meet Ministers. I hope that this debate will ensure that more of that happens.”
“Were that not bad enough, as more and more building surveys have been done, other problems have come to light, such as missing firebreaks—which mean that the buildings were never built according to building regulations in the first place—or wooden balconies, which the new guidance says have to be replaced.”
“My hon. Friend has painted a picture, as we all can, of the strain, the heartache and the worry, which are not difficult to understand. If we had received one of those letters and it was happening to us in our home, we too would be worried sick. Our constituents who are caught up in that nightmare want our help, and they need it now. The Minister knows only too well how we got here, following the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, so I do not propose to go over any of that again. The Government had to act in the wake of that tragedy to change what was clearly a wholly defective system. However, having done so, Ministers have put leaseholders in a manifestly unjust position.”
“The developers may have gone bust, the builders may no longer be trading, and some freeholders say, “I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t have the money to replace the cladding on this building.””
“The hon. Member makes a really important point. Lots of my constituents say to me, “But it was signed off under building regs. Surely that means it’s safe.” Well, it does not quite mean that, for reasons that we can go into on another occasion. It is part of the system that has still to be fixed. Other leaseholders are drawn in because, even though their blocks have not been identified as having a problem, when they try to sell the flat the mortgage company says, “Okay—but, by the way, where’s the certificate that says that this building complies with the new regulations that the Government have, quite properly, put in place?” If they cannot produce it, the property is worthless and becomes unsellable. If that was not complicated enough, just to complete the story, the ownership structure of blocks and the history varies.”
“The hon. Gentleman, who has great expertise in this matter, is correct. I will come to what the Government have said about the responsibility of freeholders, but I think the point we are all making is that this is not the fault of the leaseholders, who never expected when they bought that first dream home that this burden might fall upon them.”
“We have already heard those calls today, and I am calling for that as well, because it is the only fair way forward and the only way in which the objective of removing all dangerous cladding, with which we all agree, can be achieved. Unless that happens, in situations where freeholders cannot or do not find the money and leaseholders clearly do not have the money, the nightmare will continue. They will go on living in an unsafe building; the only way they will be able to stay in it will be to go on and on paying for a waking watch, as the cladding will never be removed because there is no one to pay for it. Eventually, that will bankrupt them.”
“The problem with the idea of loans is that it completely breaches the principle that the Government set out at the start of this crisis—and believe me, it is a crisis. That principle was that leaseholders living in buildings with unsafe cladding should not have to pay for the cost of its removal, because that would create two classes of leaseholder: one whom the Government would seek to protect from the cost of replacing cladding, and another to whom the Government would say, “I’m terribly sorry, you’ve got to pay.” That would be completely unfair, which is why many of us are calling on Ministers to extend the coverage and size of the fund to all buildings with unsafe cladding of whatever type.”
“He said: “We looked at questions such as whether a loan arrangement could work but ultimately, given the complexity, the time that would have been involved and the need for all sorts of different consents, and given that my priority is providing a sense of assurance for leaseholders and getting on with this, we decided to adopt this structure.” —[ Official Report , 9 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 695.] By “this structure”, he meant grants. If that was the view then, what has changed? Perhaps the Minister can explain in her response. When the Secretary of State talked about hardship, when leaseholders are on low incomes or do not have any savings, the implication was clearly that if a person does not fall into one of those two categories, they will bear the total cost themselves.”
“Friend that he was talking about loans to leaseholders, because he referred to existing examples of building owners who have provided low-interest or zero-interest loans on a hardship basis. He went on to say: “There may be a role for the Government in ensuring that that works, that the loans are affordable, and that it is done as quickly as possible.” —[ Official Report , 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 33.] However, that would be another change of policy, because on 9 May last year, when the then Secretary of State announced the grant fund, he was specifically asked about loans.”
“Are the owners of those blocks going to be named and shamed—and if not, why not? When the Secretary of State was pressed on that point in the House on 20 January, he indicated that the Government were considering further help. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), he talked about the possibility of loans. If those loans went to the freeholders, that might possibly be a way forward, but only if the Government could guarantee that none of the costs would be passed on to the leaseholders; if they just got a bill for it through their service charge, that would breach the principle that the Government set out. However, it was clear from the Secretary of State’s reply to my hon.”
“Give us a plan for how you are going to replace this cladding.” The chief fire officer of West Yorkshire fire service put it to me this Monday that “it is our view that there is no difference between unsafe ACM cladding and unsafe HPL cladding.” Why, then, are the Government seeking to distinguish between the two when it comes to the position of leaseholders? I say to the Minister that that position is completely unsustainable. Thirdly, Ministers have rightly been adamant that unsafe cladding has to be removed. They have set up the fund and said that they are going to name and shame freeholders who do not get on and do it. The latest building safety data says that 174 ACM-clad private sector residential buildings are still yet to be remediated. What is those Ministers’ position on other types of dangerously clad buildings?”
“Nobody knows how many such buildings there may be, but the point is that leaseholders in buildings with other types of cladding find themselves in exactly the same position as people who are living in buildings with ACM cladding, except for one thing: the Government’s fund does not cover the removal of their cladding. Secondly, the idea of differential risk is not applied by the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. It does not distinguish between different types of cladding when it issues notices that say, “This building is unsafe. Start a waking watch now, or you are going to have to move out.”
“First, the Secretary of State said on 20 January that he had received advice that ACM cladding was much more dangerous than other types of cladding. Anyone who has seen the film of student accommodation in Bolton going up, convulsed in flames, might wonder whether that is the case, since that building was covered in high pressure laminate. It was the Government’s review that brought in the new advice, and that advice toughened the standards, leading to other buildings being peered at, prodded and having bits taken off them when people discovered the problems with HPL and other systems.”
“That is why the Government eventually realised they could not carry on, because otherwise ACM cladding would not be removed. On 9 May last year, the Government announced the £200 million fund to support the removal of ACM, to protect those leaseholders from bearing the cost. There have been problems with that fund—slow disbursement, bureaucracy and the like—that are for another debate, but I welcome that decision. It showed unreservedly that the Government were determined to uphold the principle they had established: leaseholders should not have to pay. However, what is now happening in respect of buildings with other types of unsafe cladding completely contradicts the principled position that the Government have taken until this point. Why is this happening?”
“It would be monstrous to expect people who are entirely blameless to pay for the mistakes and errors of others. It has been pointed out that if our constituents had bought cars or washing machines that were a fire risk, no one would dream of saying to them, “Sorry, you are going to have to pay for the cost of replacement.” Their problem is that they bought the home of their dreams. I acknowledge the responsible way in which some freeholders, including in Leeds, have accepted that they need to foot the bill to replace the cladding. That work has either been done or is in progress, or we are told it is timetabled. However, despite the Government’s policy, there are freeholders who have not lived up to their responsibilities.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. When the problem of ACM cladding was first identified, the Government quite properly said that it all has to come off and be replaced. Importantly, they also said that however it was done, leaseholders should not have to pay. On 29 November 2018, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Everyone has a right to feel safe in their homes and I have repeatedly made clear that building owners and developers must replace dangerous ACM cladding. And the costs must not be passed on to leaseholders.” I agree with that. The Secretary of State repeated that point on 9 May 2019, when he said: “Leaseholders find themselves in this position through no fault of their own, and this is not morally defensible.” —[ Official Report , 9 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 688.] Again, I agree.”
“All leaseholders on whose behalf we speak today, whose lives are in turmoil, will be watching very carefully to see how the Minister responds. They are not going anywhere—indeed they cannot, because they are trapped in their homes. All they are asking for is to be able to put this nightmare behind them, to go back to living in a safe home and to get on with their lives. Every single hon. Member in this Chamber has a responsibility to ensure that that is what happens, and happens soon.”
“What more can the Government do about buildings that have not yet been identified as unsafe but where mortgage companies are asking for a certificate? The EWS1 form has not solved all the problems, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what more can be done. I will bring my remarks to a close, because many hon. Members want to speak. I see no case for Ministers to move away from the principle they established at the start of the crisis: that leaseholders should not have to pay. I see no case for treating one group of leaseholders differently from another. I see no way for all the dangerous cladding to be replaced other than for the Government to step in and extend the coverage of their fund to all types of blocks that the fire service has identified as unsafe. That is what is needed and it is needed urgently.”
“My right hon. Friend makes an overwhelmingly powerful case for treating all unsafe cladding as unsafe and needing to be replaced. The Minister has a tough job, because negotiations with the Treasury are difficult and there are complications. Was building control at fault originally? Can freeholders claim on insurance or building warranties? Can they sue the architects or developers for defects in the original design or construction, assuming there is still someone to sue? Perhaps, but that will take years, and it is not an answer. I say readily, however, that if a claim is successful and the Government have paid to remove the cladding, the money ought to go back to the Government. I also have no problem with the Government taking equity in the freehold of buildings if they have coughed up for the removal of cladding.”
“I thank all colleagues for the force and clarity of their arguments. It is no good pretending that the leaseholders listening to the debate will not be very disappointed by the response that they have heard. I hope that the Minister will go back to the conversations with the Treasury and say, “Blimey, we’re in a bit of a mess here—MPs on all sides of the House are not going to go away,” because we will be back. The Budget is coming up, and I hope that on that day, we will hear what the Government will do to ensure that leaseholders do not have to pay. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement but, given what he has said about reviewing phase 2b, could he tell the people of Leeds when he now expects the new HS2 station to open?”
“Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the latest scientific advice he has had on when, as we all hope, a vaccine might be available?”
“In the Prime Minister’s other written ministerial statement this morning on the closure of the Department for Exiting the European Union, he said: “Those of its functions which are still required have been transferred to relevant government departments.” Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House to which Department and which Minister responsibility for the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU has been transferred? The Exiting the European Union Committee will be keen to hear from him or her as soon as they are identified.”