Seema Malhotra
MP for Feltham and Heston · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Public sector productivity is improving, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing output continuing to grow faster than inputs, and Departments being challenged to improve efficiency and modernise outdated processes.”
“I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities.”
“We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow. Let me again thank my hon.”
“For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre.”
“Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in.”
“Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,023 lines we hold for Seema Malhotra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 48 of 101.
“] We have been promised more before, and the Prime Minister announced that more immediate steps would be taken. Will the Secretary of State confirm when other aspects of the economic crime Bill, such as the reform of Scottish limited partnerships and the power to seize crypto-assets, will come before the House? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the register of overseas entities will be publicly available and that there will be criminal penalties for non-compliance? Will those criminal penalties apply to those who fail to update the register annually, as well as to those who provide false information? Will he confirm when the register will be up and running?”
“If the intention, as stated, is to impede Russian money, the register will need to be operational in the coming weeks to have any effect. I assure the Government of Labour’s full support in moving through the Bill’s stages quickly, and hope in turn that they will act quickly to make the register and other measures a reality. I wish to press the Secretary of State on some key areas in which the Government must go further to make the measures as effective as they could be, and I do that in the spirit of cross-party support. I welcome his announcement that the economic crime transparency and enforcement Bill, or some aspects of it, will finally be introduced tomorrow and welcome the White Paper reforms to Companies House, but frankly, we have to ask whether a White Paper is all he is bringing forward on Companies House— [ Interruption .”
“We were first promised this legislation in 2016, and this draft legislation has in fact been ready since 2018. Although we support the Government’s actions today, the Secretary of State needs to take responsibility for the time and progress lost through Government inaction. I hope we will see that lessons are learned for this Bill and future legislation, because time is of the essence. The UK would have been in a much stronger position to act with speed and our national security would have been better protected if the register had already been up and running. That is why the Government must move quickly, because the dangers of a lack of transparency, particularly in the current climate, are all too plain to see.”
“These steps are imperative, not just for financial transparency but for our national security, and the Government’s action on that to date falls far short of the leadership required. That is why we must urgently take the necessary steps to drag illicit finance out of the shadows and make it clear that the UK will no longer be a home to dirty money. We therefore support the Government in introducing the emergency legislation in the light of the atrocities that we are seeing in Ukraine. The need for it is clear for all to see, but the Secretary of State will recognise that these steps have been needed for a long time. He will know that Labour and, indeed, some Government Members have been calling for years for the measures that the Government have announced.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and for our call with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), this afternoon. The Labour party and the House are united in our support for Ukraine and we take very seriously our role in ensuring that Russia’s unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression fails. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the world, with huge concern across Parliament and the country about the invasion and the unfolding humanitarian crisis. It is clear, however, that it has taken the Russian invasion of Ukraine to shake the Conservative party into finally taking the action that is required.”
“Secondly, a year on from the historical shortfall scheme closing—I understand that over 2,500 have applied—only 30% of claims have been processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to hold the Post Office to account in urgently getting through this backlog, and can he clarify the definition of “eligible” that he stated? Finally, could he provide the House with an update on how long it will be before we get closure on compensation for all those affected? The Minister is right that we will need to learn the lessons, understand the causes and ensure that this never happens again. The devastating reality of this scandal will be felt by so many families for years. The Government have taken some of the right steps, and we do appreciate that, but justice is not happening quickly enough and it is not going far enough.”
“I recommend that every Member spends time listening to the accounts just to understand how widespread this injustice has been. Last week’s very important Select Committee report shows that, 12 years on, we are still painfully far from all the sub-postmasters receiving the compensation they deserve. Sadly, 33 of them have died before receiving any recompense. My thoughts and those of the whole House will be with their loved ones. Given the cripplingly slow pace of justice, I want to press the Government on a few issues. First, without the extraordinary efforts of the 555 litigants, much of what we know would not have come to light. The Minister expressed his sympathy, but as Labour has pushed for time and again, will he now confirm that this group will be able to claim the compensation that is due, as he has hinted, and if so, when?”
“I, too, thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this important urgent question, and I really pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work on this issue. The Horizon scandal is perhaps the most devastating miscarriage of justice in British history, damaging the lives of over 700 wrongly convicted sub-postmasters and their families, and the lives of so many who have been affected but have not been convicted. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those postmasters who have been relentless in their quest for justice. As the judge-led inquiry into this scandal has just begun, we have now been hearing extremely moving and devastating testimonies.”
“The Secretary of State omitted to mention that inflation is now at its highest level for 30 years. Energy costs are spiralling and the private sector has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Does he acknowledge that the Chancellor’s very large rise in national insurance, coming in April, will make a bad situation for British businesses even worse?”
“The Secretary of State did not answer the question, because he knows that this is a high-tax Government because they have created a low-growth economy. May I also raise his recent claim that fraud is not something that affects people day to day? Fraud is estimated to cost the British economy as much as £52 billion a year, so will he accept that he has got this wrong? Will he apologise to the 4.6 million people who are victims of fraud each year, and tell the House today what steps he will take to do better?”
“The Prime Minister has come to the House unable to state whether carers in our communities, visiting home after home in one day—often the homes of older people and the clinically extremely vulnerable—will still have access to free tests to keep themselves and their patients and clients safe. He said that testing for NHS staff will be a matter for the NHS. Surely he can do better than that. The NHS and carers need to plan ahead. Will he come clean with the House about his intentions?”
“With 31 March two months away, will the Minister work with colleagues across Government and across this House, and use our soft power to bring the international community together more quickly and with greater urgency, not only to tackle the humanitarian crisis but to accelerate the evacuation and resettlement of Afghans still at risk?”
“Many of my constituents have close family members in Afghanistan who worked bravely to further our shared aims in the country, including by working alongside NATO forces, in the media and on supporting women’s rights. So many who could not get out are at ongoing serious risk from the Taliban and are still in hiding. Constituents have told me recently about how family members are being hunted by the Taliban, who are going door to door. The humanitarian crisis is making things so much worse, with food prices rising and the impossibility of access to the help that is needed.”
“For goodness’ sake, let us step up to the challenge and bring forward the measures that we need today.”
“Far too much support is too siloed, and what teachers are telling me is that, in terms of catch-up, mental health treatment is the most acute need, but the support and the expertise that are needed are not there in schools. We know that when children are waiting for weeks—even up to four weeks—for treatment, it is already too late. It is affecting their learning and their lives, and at that point they are already falling behind, exacerbating their mental health issues, causing anxiety for them and their parents. In conclusion, we have shared some real stories today—stories of the real lives of children in my constituency right now. These are children who have not returned to school and who do not leave their bedrooms because of their anxiety. It is the same across the country.”
“These are vital to achieve three key things: support our young people, support our teachers to help them, and support parents to help their children. Schools have sought to do what they can. In one school, 40 pupils—5% of the total cohort—are being seen weekly by an in-house counsellor. Such a resource that this school has introduced reduces pressure on external services and helps children and young people to get that support early. It is the business case for why we need these measures that we are debating today. Professionals based in schools are critical because they can also join up work with parents and teachers so that support for children becomes more joined up and aligned.”
“In north-west London, a staggering 71% of children are not seen within four weeks of being referred to children’s mental health services. The headline message from my local heads, including those from Reach Academy, Springwest Academy and Cranford Community College, is that the need for mental health support is very high. Timely access to the right support is a key challenge, and the support that exists could be joined up. That is why it is right that Labour is calling for a guarantee for mental health treatment within a month for children who need it, for a full-time mental health professional in every secondary school and a part-time professional in every primary school, and mental health hubs for children and young people in every community.”
“Children in Feltham and Heston and across the country face many challenges both online and offline against which they battle for their own wellbeing, their confidence and their achievement. Today, in Children’s Mental Health Week, I want to speak in support of Labour’s motion and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her passion and leadership in bringing this debate forward. We have all been concerned about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the mental health of young people, many of whom have also tragically lost loved ones. If covid has been scary enough for adults, just imagine how scary it has been for children. In truth, though, covid has only compounded the issues that were already there. I thank teachers, parents and all who work with children for helping to deal with this crisis that we face.”
“The Minister has said that we were prepared for all eventualities, but I think he knows that the truth is that that was not the case. As illustrated in comments by Members across the House, we did not plan ahead sufficiently for what was needed in a pandemic. The Minister said in his statement that 97% of the PPE ordered was suitable for use. Obviously, that means that 3% was not. He also said that the Government are actively seeking to recover costs from suppliers where possible in those cases. Does he not realise that that is a very weak way of responding to that challenge? What safeguards were put in place in those contracts, and will he publish for the House updated data on suppliers that are not refunding the taxpayer—suppliers that took public funds and did not deliver the goods?”
“Frankly, what we are hearing today just is not good enough. We know that the situation is utterly dire in Afghanistan. Could I request that the Minister takes away what she has heard from both sides of the Chamber today and comes back to the House as soon as possible in the next few days with a statement about how the UK is stepping up its leadership on the humanitarian crisis and about what it will do to expedite the evacuation and resettlement of at-risk Afghans who are relatives of our constituents—I have 400 cases outstanding—to make sure there is a strong, clear message about how they could be evacuated for their safety? They are still at risk and they are now falling prey to the worsening humanitarian situation.”
“In the context of commercial rent debt, we welcome the relief this Bill offers to commercial tenants facing the risk of eviction, bankruptcy or debt enforcement, and we welcome the prospect of resolution on covid rent arrears offered to landlords and tenants that have not been able to reach agreement. That is why the Opposition have taken a constructive approach to scrutinising this legislation, and I hope that, in recognising the spirit in which our amendments have been tabled, the Minister will respond favourably on the points we have raised today.”
“Why is there no backstop requiring the arbitrator to make their award within a specific timeframe where there is no oral hearing, which, as I say, we understand is expected to be the majority of cases. Labour’s amendment 15 intends to ensure that awards are made within a specific timeframe irrespective of whether there is an oral hearing. In conclusion, in the current climate viable firms risk going to the wall. We believe that the Government can and should do more. From business rates to energy costs, the Government have let down British businesses and the impacts are now a part of a cumulative rise of cost pressures on businesses.”
“As Sir Paul Morgan said in his written evidence, that would be nothing new. In the case of many tribunals where the general rule is that each party will bear its own costs, the tribunal is typically given such a power. On swift resolution, the regime is intended to deliver swift resolutions for disputes, yet the Bill does not do everything possible to secure them. While clause 17 requires the arbitrator to make their award within 14 days in a case in which an oral hearing is held, where no oral hearing is held the arbitrator is required to make their award as soon as reasonably practicable. My understanding from debate in Committee is that the likelihood is that most arbitration hearings will not be oral hearings, but on the basis of paperwork. Can the Minister explain the logic here?”
“That is why our amendment 14 revises clause 11 and requires a formal proposal to be accompanied by all evidence relevant to the proposal, whether helpful to that party or not. We are pleased to see the Government table Government amendment 4. Although a 50-50 split is fair in most cases, it is right that the arbitrator has the power to change how the arbitration fees are split, particularly if one party has acted unreasonably. However, we believe that the Bill should go further than that as it is vital that tenants and landlords are incentivised to approach the arbitration process fairly and in the spirit of resolution. That is why we have tabled amendment 12, which would provide the arbitrator with the power to make an adverse cost award, where one party has caused the other to incur costs by acting unreasonably.”
“However, we believe that the Bill could be improved to further ensure a fairer arbitration process. Clause 11 requires a reference to arbitration to include a formal proposal for resolving the dispute. The other party may then put forward their own counter-proposal. Both must be supported by supporting evidence. However, a requirement to submit supporting evidence is not the same as full disclosure on an open book basis. As the Property Litigation Association makes clear, parties are not required to provide any evidence which might be adverse to their proposal. This lack of an obligation to make full disclosure prevents the other party from making an informed counter-proposal and, arguably, ultimately the swift resolution of the dispute.”
“Stakeholders have also made it clear to me how vital it is that there is consistency across the new system in how different arbitrators interpret the legislation and any guidance under it. For example, an arbitrator must dismiss a reference to arbitration where it determines that the tenant’s business is not viable. As such, how arbitrators interpret viability is of central importance. On the conduct of parties, it is welcome news from stakeholders that the vast majority of landlords and tenants have already reached agreement on their covid rent arrears. The British Retail Consortium estimated in December that 80% to 90% of its members had reached agreement. For the minority of businesses that are yet to reach agreement, the arbitration scheme provides a lifeline for an independent and binding arbitration.”
“While the appointed arbitral bodies will maintain their own lists of arbitrators, in a system where the Secretary of State may appoint several bodies, it is the Secretary of State who ultimately must ensure that there is sufficient capacity. The intention of amendment 13 is to make that an explicit and ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the arbitral bodies appointed have sufficient numbers of arbitrators to hear and report on all cases as quickly as possible. If the impact assessment’s estimate is too conservative, our amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint additional arbitral bodies to work with those bodies already appointed to increase their list of approved arbitrators.”
“In Committee, we heard the concerns of stakeholders who wanted to understand what skills and expertise would be required of arbitrators. While some thought that financial and accounting qualifications were critical, others suggested that legal qualifications would be paramount given the complexity of the cases. I would welcome any update on the Department’s discussions with stakeholders and about the approval of suitable arbitral bodies. As well as ensuring that arbitrators are suitably qualified, it is vital that there is sufficient capacity. The Government’s impact assessment assumes 8,200 cases going to arbitration in its central scenario.”
“As a result, a party could apply to court to stay any debt claim that is made by a landlord and relates to protected rent debt, pending a resolution whether by negotiation or arbitration. We see this as an issue of basic fairness. Labour does not believe that landlords or tenants should be punished for in effect doing the right thing and seeking to negotiate a settlement. I turn now to Labour’s amendments designed to ensure that the new scheme operates effectively. First, on arbitrators and arbitration bodies, arbitral bodies and their members will be absolutely critical to the success of this arbitration scheme. The Government have taken a market-based approach to the running of the arbitration scheme, which will have a list of approved arbitral bodies, rather than a single provider.”
“UKHospitality and others have been calling for this protection for months. While it is welcome that the Government have finally listened to industry and to Labour, and improved the provisions that would stay any debt proceedings made after 10 November, choosing this cut-off date has had some perverse consequences. As we heard in Committee, the result of this arbitrary date means that any landlord who started proceedings before 10 November is now arguably in a better position than those who held off and pursued negotiations with their tenant. Surely this cannot be the Minister’s intention. As the British Retail Consortium explained, the more aggressive the landlord, the better the position they are now in on county court and High Court judgments. That is why we have tabled amendment 17, which would remove this arbitrary cut-off date.”
“In Committee, the Minister acknowledged the importance of affordability and suggested that he was working with relevant bodies that may be appointed to agree cost schedules. Could the Minister update the House on those discussions? Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the discretion to specify ceilings for arbitration fees in secondary legislation. Given the concerns of stakeholders and the financial pressures they are facing, the Secretary of State should be required to set a limit on arbitration fees, and that is the intention of amendment 16. On county court judgments, the Minister will know that many commercial tenants were deeply frustrated that the temporary protections introduced to assist businesses struggling to pay their rent did not include protections against county court judgments and High Court judgments.”
“The code of conduct suggests that the arbitration scheme will be operational on 25 March 2022, but what happens if the legislation passes before that date? Will that mean that parties have less than six months to make a reference? What if the legislation is not passed until a later date? Presumably, the current code of conduct would then need to be amended and existing protections extended. Amendment 10 reflects the suggestion by Bill Chandler of Hill Dickinson LLP that the date for referrals to open be fixed as 25 March 2022 irrespective of whether the legislation is passed. I would be grateful for the Minister’s feedback on that and on the importance of these questions in relation to improving accessibility to and the clarity of the new regime. Let me turn to the question of cost. The scheme will be a success only if it is affordable.”
“Labour’s amendment 9 would fill those gaps, broadening the definition of “business tenancy” to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant. Unless the Minister can confirm that in the examples I have given it is intended that the leases would fall outside the new regime, I very much hope that the Government will recognise the gap and support our proposed changes. We have tabled amendment 10, in relation to the period for reference to arbitration, in the same spirit of constructiveness. Clause 9 establishes a six-month period for a tenant or landlord to make a reference to arbitration, for which the clock starts on the day on which the Act is passed. We recognise and support the need to act quickly, but want to ensure that the full six months is available to tenants and landlords.”
“As Sir Paul explains, the tenant may have a viable business but may not wish to reoccupy the particular premises for which the rent was due. Under the Bill as it stands, there would not be a business tenancy in such a case and the tenant would not be able to claim the benefit of the Bill in relation to that property, where the company was a tenant of that property during the period that is protected. Secondly, there might be a situation where there is a head lease and a sub-lease on the property, for example where there is a franchising arrangement and the franchisee is the sub-tenant. In such a situation, the head lessee does not occupy the property and therefore could not benefit from the reliefs under the Bill, whereas the sub-tenant could.”
“We believe that such a review would be welcomed by landlords, tenants and arbitrators and would ensure that the system is well understood. On the accessibility and affordability of the new scheme, the definition of “business tenancy” in clause 2 has important consequences. Only tenancies in which the tenant is in occupation of the property fall within the Bill’s scope and can therefore access the arbitration scheme that it establishes. Let me give the House two examples of circumstances that could fall outside the Bill because of that definition. First, Sir Paul Morgan, a specialist in property arbitration, has set out the case of a tenant who leaves a property unoccupied because of covid restrictions and does not now intend to reoccupy it when the restrictions end.”
“On consistency, the Minister will appreciate that there will be retail and hospitality businesses with numerous landlords, and landlords with numerous tenants; businesses may therefore be party to more than one case under the new system. Predictability and consistency will be vital if those businesses are to have faith in the system, so our new clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether clauses 15 and 16 have been interpreted consistently. The review would need to be conducted “no later than three months following the day on which this Act is passed”, and where the Secretary of State identifies material inconsistencies, he would need to publish or amend guidance to arbitrators as necessary.”
“Managing financial pressures and supporting viable businesses to do so—that is the helping hand that we need in place as businesses navigate the uncertain road ahead and as some sectors recover faster than others. To access the opportunities that we seek to ensure that the Bill provides, we need to be sure of the consistency, affordability and accessibility of arbitration and to ensure that the system operates effectively and fairly. On that basis, we have tabled new clause 1 and our other amendments in a positive spirit, to continue the dialogue that we had at the earlier stages of the Bill, because we support it and want it to work as effectively as possible.”
“It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 9 to 17, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). A process for resolving commercial rent arrears is very much needed, as dealing with the financial pressures brought on by covid is vital for landlords and tenants alike. Against that backdrop, Labour broadly welcomes the Bill, but we believe that the Government can and should do more on business support. That context is important because covid is not over. Business costs continue to rise, and they are also driven by rising fuel costs and inflation. Economic forecasts for the next three to five years project low growth, high inflation and high taxes.”
“This is for consistency with the extent of the legislation covering those matters. Amendment 21, page 16, leave out line 21 and insert— “(a) in section 24— (i) subsection (2)(a), and (ii) subsection (4) so far as relating to a company voluntary arrangement,”.— (Paul Scully.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 20. Third Reading Queen’s consent signified.”
“The reference in clause 30(2) to clause 28 is no longer correct if clause 28 is left out of the Bill. The rest of clause 30(2) (which provides that Part 4 of the Bill extends to the whole of the UK) is reproduced in Amendment 20, so the whole of clause 30(2) can be omitted. Amendment 20, page 16, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert— “(a) in section 24— (i) subsections (1), (2)(c) and (3), and (ii) subsection (4) so far as relating to a compromise or arrangement under section 899 or 901F of the Companies Act 2006, (b) Part 1 so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a), and (c) this Part.” This amendment and Amendment 21 secure that clause 24(4) extends to Northern Ireland in relation to company compromises and arrangements, but not company voluntary arrangements.”
“Clause 24 Temporary restriction on initiating certain insolvency arrangements Amendment made: 8, page 14, line 37, at end insert “(as well as to companies).” This is a drafting amendment to make clear that clause 24(4) (which applies provisions of the clause to LLPs) operates in addition to the rest of the clause. Clause 28 Power to make corresponding provision in Northern Ireland Amendment made: 18, page 15, line 33, leave out clause 28. The responsible Northern Ireland minister has informed Her Majesty’s Government that the powers to be conferred by clause 28 are no longer needed. This amendment would omit the clause, which would otherwise require the approval of a Legislative Consent Motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Clause 30 Extent, Commencement and Short Title Amendments made: 19, page 16, leave out lines 14 and 15.”
“Clause 20 Oral hearings Amendment made : 7, page 12, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert “(subject to subsection (6A)) also make an award requiring the other party to reimburse the applicant for half the hearing fees. ‘(6A) The general rule in subsection (6) does not apply if the arbitrator considers it more appropriate in all the circumstances to award a different proportion (which may be zero).’” This amendment clarifies that the rule in the current clause 20(6)(a) (that the party paying the oral hearing fees is to be reimbursed half of the amount) is the general rule, although the arbitrator is able to determine a different proportion, including zero, where appropriate.”
“The word “Otherwise” at the start of clause 19(6) currently refers back to clause 19(5), but it also needs to take account of the provisions of clause 20(6) which makes provision corresponding to clause 19(5) for oral hearing fees. Amendment 6, page 12, line 19, at end insert — “(6A) Legal or other costs incurred in connection with arbitration (including arbitration fees) are not recoverable by virtue of any term of the business tenancy concerned.” The amendment clarifies that arbitration costs are not recoverable under a tenancy term enabling recovery of enforcement costs relating to a breach of covenant under the tenancy. The parties’ rights and obligations in relation to arbitration costs are governed by clauses 19 and 20.”
“‘(5A) The general rule in subsection (5) does not apply if the arbitrator considers it more appropriate in the circumstances of the case to award a different proportion (which may be zero).’” This amendment clarifies that the rule in the current clause 19(5)(a) (that the party paying the arbitration fees is to be reimbursed half of the amount) is the general rule, although the arbitrator is able to determine a different proportion, including zero, where appropriate. Amendment 5, page 12, line 19, leave out “Otherwise” and insert “Except as provided by subsection (5) and section 20(6),”. This corrects a small error in clause 19(6).”
“Clause 10 Requirements for making a reference to arbitration Amendment made: 3, page 8, line 12, at end insert “(as well as to companies).” This is a drafting amendment to make clear that clause 10(6) (which applies provisions of the clause to LLPs) operates in addition to the rest of the clause Clause 19 Arbitration fees and expenses Amendments made: 4, page 12, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert “(subject to subsection (5A)) also make an award requiring the other party to reimburse the applicant for half the arbitration fees paid under subsection (4).”
“Amendment 2, page 2, line 22, leave out from “costs”” to “in” and insert “includes costs incurred by the landlord in connection with insuring against loss of rent or”. This amendment clarifies that the costs of insurance against loss of rent are within the expression “service charge”, in addition to insurance costs relating to the demised premises and any common parts.”
“On the basis of the Minister’s comments, particularly those relating to ongoing review, and other comments relating to the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . Clause 2 “Rent” and “business tenancy” Amendments made: 1, page 2, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert— (ii) which is a fixed amount or an amount that varies or may vary according to the relevant costs (or a combination of the two),”. This amendment clarifies that the expression “service charge” includes any amount payable under the terms of a tenancy for something mentioned in clause 2(2)(c)(i), whether it is a fixed amount or a variable amount (or a combination of a fixed part and a variable part).”
“Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of: any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or another public authority; and any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.— (Jo Churchill.) Glue Traps (Offences) Bill (Ways and Means) Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees and other charges under the Act.— (Jo Churchill.)”
“Labour supports the Bill, which addresses a commercial issue on which we have called for action. It provides a fair system for helping landlords and tenants to find a solution to rent arrears under a binding arbitration system. Its measures must be kept under review so that the outcomes that it is intended to achieve are supported, and the process does not otherwise become one that loses the confidence of those it is there to support. On that basis, I wish colleagues in the other place every success in their ongoing scrutiny of the Bill as it moves forward. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. Glue Traps (Offences) Bill (Money) Queen’s recommendation signified.”
“We recognise that, as the scheme comes in over March and into April, businesses will also be hit by the hike in national insurance contributions, as well as the ongoing labour shortages, supply chain shortages, rising prices and rising inflation. It is why, in the context of business cost challenges, we continue to believe that the hike in national insurance contributions will be the wrong move at the wrong time. It will be right when viable businesses, we hope, start to recover, and when the arbitration process comes in and they are expected to repay any rent arrears. It is critical that any arbitration system that is created is administered within the context of a wider supportive environment for businesses. I hope that the Minister will keep that under review, and perhaps raise the issue with his Treasury colleagues.”