Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 58 of 170.
“One respondent talked about the impact of cutting back on heating and said: “We did use the heating less at first but my…baby ended up with pneumonia and a lower left lung infection…so now we have reduced the thermostat instead.” Another stated: “I have had days when the only thing I have eaten is the kids’ leftovers. Some days my only meal is toast.” We know how hard it is to be a parent at the best of times, but being forced to make those kinds of decision can only add to the burden. Financial insecurity is one huge aspect of motherhood, but job insecurity is another. Research has consistently found massive discrimination at work due to pregnancy. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimated in 2015 that “around 54,000 new mothers may be forced out of their jobs” in some way due to their pregnancies.”
“Some 76% of women surveyed reported that they reduced the number of hours their heating was on; 70% turned down their thermostat; and 55% stopped heating whole rooms altogether. As we know, those choices are made reluctantly and have significant consequences, particularly for newborns, who can pick up infections as a result of the cold, damp and mould. Equally, some parents have reported that they have reduced the amount that they spent on food. Half did that by buying less healthy food, more than one third reduced portions or skipped meals, and one quarter prioritised giving food to their children over themselves. Just listening to the testimony collected shows the stark reality and human cost of this situation.”
“Research conducted by Maternity Action shows that most women have concerns about money, with the number who are worried increasing at an alarming rate as the cost of living crisis bites in very real terms. In 2022, 64% of women who responded to the survey reported being worried about money when pregnant or on maternity leave. That increased to 71% this year. Widespread concerns about money are all-encompassing. Only 2% of those surveyed claimed that they did not worry about money at all. Some 73% of women told Maternity Action that they struggled to buy the things they needed while pregnant or on maternity leave, of whom 18% reported struggling “a lot”. That has practical consequences.”
“Gas and electricity inflation has reached 129% and 67% at various points in the year, and, as we have already discussed, mortgage rates are shooting up for many people, resulting in instant requests for hundreds of pounds extra a month that people simply do not have. Looking at inflation in a year in isolation does not tell us the full story. If we go back to 2012, the basic rate of statutory maternity pay equated to 62.5% of a 35-hour week on the national minimum wage, but today it equates to 47.3% of a 35-hour week on the same rate of pay. We are towards the bottom of the league table of decent maternity pay in Europe. Women receive only around 25% of average earnings. As the hon. Member for Strangford suggested, countries such as those in Scandinavia do far better on those metrics.”
“Member for Glasgow East said, that is not something we should accept as the norm. That should not be substituted as a safety net for the state, but, sadly, that is where we are. In my constituency we have great groups that help out, such as West Cheshire food bank, the Whitby Community Cupboard and the People’s Pantry at Stanney Grange, which I recall visiting recently and being told how much demand there was for formula milk and help and how important it was to get donations, which shows how out of reach all that is for many people. Of course, the issue is not just about formula milk; it is about the general increase in essentials. Food inflation is just under 20% at the moment.”
“As the recent Sky News report highlighted, theft of formula milk is becoming more prevalent. Is there anything that symbolises more the current crisis in our country than images of formula baby milk stacked on supermarket shelves with security tags around them? That sends a very clear message about what kind of country we are and the crisis we face. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we know how important it is for children to have a healthy start in life and how their formative years can shape the ones that follow. I worry that the fallout from the issues we are talking about now will be with us for many years to come. On a more positive note, I pay tribute to all the charities and volunteers who do their bit to ensure that everyone has access to food and support when they need it. As the hon.”
“The figures do not capture the full picture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned. Inflationary increases in the essentials for parents have been particularly acute. She traded some figures about the costs, and I have a few of my own. We can pick whichever ones we want, but they go far beyond the headline rate of inflation for new parents. The Mirror showed an increase in costs of 38% in a year. The Guardian found that the cheapest baby formula had gone up by 22% in a year. First Steps Nutrition Trust showed that the cheapest brands had gone up by 45% in the past two years and other brands had gone up between 17% and 31%. There is a range of percentages that shows how the issue goes way beyond the headline rate of inflation, which statutory maternity pay is based on.”
“Of course, they are always held up as the most progressive examples of welfare support and progressive societies, and I am sure there is something to learn from them. It is important that we do not see the debate as something that has only happened recently because of the cost of living crisis. Many of the extra pressures are ones that new parents have faced since time began, but they are particularly acute at the moment. In that context, it is important to look at the issue raised in the petition, which is the level of statutory maternity pay. As we know, inflation has skyrocketed in the past two years. Although this year’s increase in statutory maternity pay more accurately reflects the economic situation, last year there was an increase in statutory maternity pay of only 3.1% when inflation was running at about 9%.”
“I hope our welfare state is not beyond repair. I sincerely hope that we are able to build back the blocks of society that have been dismantled over the past 13 years, but wherever we turn in society now, we see the third sector stepping in because the state has not been able to meet the demand, and that is a signal that something has gone fundamentally wrong in this country. Let me return to the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford, who mentioned mortgage costs. As other Members have mentioned, that will become a huge issue over the next 12 months. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, it is a live issue, and the Government are still grappling with the implications. The hon. Member for Strangford raised the example of Scandinavian countries.”
“Last week Skipton Building Society announced that it was closing its Neston branch, which means that Neston will no longer have any banks or building societies. As Members will know, this is a trend. It has already happened in Ellesmere Port, and throughout the country banks and building societies are leaving the high streets. I know that there have been attempts to set up banking clubs, but to my knowledge only four have been created in the whole country, and I think that the threshold for their creation is far too high. May we have a debate on what more we can do to ensure that these important facilities are not lost for good?”
“Here we are again. It has been nearly nine months since the Bill was introduced, during which time five different members of the Government have spoken in support of the Bill from the Front Bench, most of them making one appearance before never being seen again. I congratulate the Solicitor General on making it back for a second appearance. Although, of course, the question of retained EU law needs to be addressed, our main contention is that the way in which the Bill attempted to do that was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. To some extent, we have seen an end to that kamikaze approach, which is of course welcome, although it does not mean that all our concerns have been dealt with.”
“I am grateful for that intervention. I note that, again, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is not here to defend the Bill in its current form. We have consistently been told by businesses throughout the Bill’s passage that it is so chaotic that nobody can possibly plan ahead. How can any business prepare for the future if it cannot understand what the rules will be six months hence, never mind 12 or 18 months into the future.”
“Of course, giving a Committee the power to request a debate on the Floor of the House will be reliant on its making the judgment that such a debate is necessary, but this does secure a degree of scrutiny over ministerial decisions. It also hands at least some power back to Parliament, which was, of course, for some, what Brexit was all about.”
“As we know, clause 15 empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure which they consider appropriate “to achieve the same or similar objectives”; or “make such alternative provision as the…national authority considers appropriate”. In the face of such untrammelled concentrations of power in the Executive, Lords amendment 42B seeks to put a democratic check on the use of those powers. Actually requiring a Minister who wishes to use these powers to set out their proposals before each House is entry-level transparency that should have been part of the procedure to start with. Allowing a Committee of this House to consider them seems a fairly uncontroversial suggestion, even if some people now think that Committees cannot act in a bipartisan way.”
“Of course, we can all imagine what might be said by the public if the worst was to happen and environmental standards were to slip as a result of this Bill. We would say to our constituents, “But we were promised this wouldn’t happen” and our constituents could point to the 40 hospitals not having been built, Northern Powerhouse Rail not having been started, the ditching of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill or any number of other broken promises, and they would call us naive at best. So we are right to insist that these protections stay in the Bill. Lords amendment 42B tackles one of the most controversial clauses, the one that the Hansard Society referred to in its written evidence as the “do anything we want” powers for Ministers. The Hansard Society is not prone to exaggeration and its comments have merit.”
“I have yet to hear any rational explanation as to how the conditions in the Lords amendment can be both of those things at the same time; if these steps are, as the Government tell us, things that they would be doing in any event, how can they possibly be an additional burden as well? When we are met with illogical and unconvincing arguments such as that, we are right to be concerned. I note the assurances given at the Dispatch Box on this and previous occasions, but, as we have seen with this Bill in particular, Ministers come and go, and if we were to rely on everything said at the Dispatch Box as having the same weight as actual legislation, Acts of Parliament might be half the length that they are. There is a reason we do not do that.”
“Given that the Government are supposedly committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards, one might think that those conditions are uncontroversial; they are the actions I would expect any Government committed to maintaining high standards would want to undertake. That view is shared by a range of experts, including, but certainly not limited to, the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection. Its written evidence submission endorsed all three of those suggested conditions, with its chair, Glenys Stacey, remarking: “Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.” The Government are not listening to their own watchdog and have instead chosen to refer to those conditions as “burdensome” and “unnecessary”.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as he sets out what this amendment is attempting to secure, which is a bit of security. I shall make some progress, as I am aware that a number of people wish to speak. As we have heard, Lords amendment 15B seeks to introduce conditions on some of the powers in sections 12, 13,15 and 16 relating to the environment. As my hon. Friend says, it stipulates that any regulations made may not “reduce the level of environmental protections” or “conflict with any…international environmental agreements to which the United Kingdom is party”. It also sets requirements on consultation.”
“It also suggests that this Government are not confident about what the public or indeed Parliament will have to say when their intentions become clear. That is why as many safeguards and as much transparency as possible should be injected into this Bill. In closing, I refer again to the evidence given by the Secretary of State to the European Scrutiny Committee, because if anything sums up the shambolic approach to this Bill by the Government it is her comment: “The retained EU law Bill became a process of retaining EU law. That is not what we wanted.” I do not know whether to laugh or cry at such comments. What I can say for sure is that, if anything sums up just what a tired, out-of-touch and broken Government we have, that is it.”
“Even the addition of a schedule listing regulations to be revoked does not really offer any clues about how the Government plan to approach the bulk of retained EU law. In her recent appearance before the European Scrutiny Committee, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to that list as merely containing regulations “that are redundant, rather than things that are holding us back”, meaning that we still do not know what the substantive changes will be. Maybe one day we will find out what exactly it is that has been holding us back. If the Government cannot tell us what they intend to do with the powers they hand themselves under this Bill, and they clearly do not want the light of scrutiny shone on their intentions, it is even more important that this amendment is passed.”
“I know that the oft-repeated and erroneous argument, which we have heard again today, that those laws were passed without proper democratic involvement in the first place has been offered as a reason why we should not follow such a process now. To make a pithy comment on that, two wrongs do not make a right. I would have expected those who were shouting the loudest about our sovereignty back in 2016 to be with us today. The lack of transparency and desire to bypass scrutiny that are the hallmark of this Bill demonstrate a lack of confidence from the Government in their own programme. It is clear that either they do not know, or they do not want to tell us what they intend to do with the powers conferred by the Bill.”
“I remember that exchange very well, not least because it was on my 50th birthday. It certainly shows the importance of having proper scrutiny and transparency about ministerial decisions, which has been one of our main critiques of this bill throughout. I remind hon. Members that it was said in 2016 that we needed to reassert parliamentary sovereignty and that that was what taking back control was all about. However, I said in Committee, “we” does not mean “Ministers sitting in rooms on their own, answerable to nobody, and under no requirement to explain their actions”. –– [ Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 126.] “We” means this place.”
“I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that my constituents would wonder why we are rehashing the arguments from 2016 when we have this Bill before us today.”
“As employers here, we have a duty of care towards everyone in this place, and we do not want to be seen as falling short because we are still arguing about the niceties of process. We would not accept that in any other workplace. We have to set the standard on these things, not drag our heels.”
“I remind Members of what Dame Laura Cox envisaged for internal investigations. She said that they should “be conducted by someone whose status, independence, experience and expertise are beyond question,” and that “it has to be a rigorous process, a transparent process and one that is seen to be fair to both sides.” I do not think that we are quite there on that. I will not go into detail on the flaws that I have seen in investigations, but we should be in no doubt that this serious matter must be looked at again, and I welcome the commitment to doing so. On the proposals before us, I echo what other Members have said: we need a vote on them shortly. We need to iron out the differences of opinion, ideally before the summer recess.”
“They could vote by proxy, and they would be able to submit written questions or write directly to Ministers on particular issues. It is hard to envisage any circumstances in which those measures would not be available. We need to think about the processes that the independent complaints scheme has dealt with so far. The speed and the quality of those investigations needs to be dramatically improved. That is something that we can deal with here; we can set performance targets for it. It is not in anyone’s interest—not the victim, not the accused, not the reputation of this House—for complaints to take 12 to 18 months to reach their conclusions. The police will take as long as they need to, but we should have a far greater grip on how long it takes for internal complaints to be dealt with.”
“We cannot possibly determine in this Chamber tonight every set of circumstances in which expulsion would be appropriate, so it is right that we set out a process to deal with that and for that process to be robust and thorough enough that we can have confidence it will be fair on all. However, the key is what the report says about flexibility. The panel will have flexibility to deal with the circumstances of the cases that come before it, and that seems to me the right way to do it. As I have already mentioned, that could include mitigations falling short of total exclusion. The process would be sensitive to the facts of each individual case—that is what would happen in every workplace, and it is what we should do here. As we have said, an exclusion from the estate does not mean that the Member is completely excluded from the process.”
“It should be accepted that a denial in the context of a “without prejudice” suspension, coupled with engagement, which we would expect from the Member, could actually lead to a pragmatic solution being found, which would not always necessarily mean a complete exclusion from the estate. It is clear from the report that that is possible. I know that some will consider that the threshold for intervention is too low if charges have not been brought, but that is the threshold for the process to begin. I think we have probably all agreed that currently police investigations take far too long, but it is simply too long for something that serious to be left hanging in the air.”
“Of course, if the person who is being complained against can make representations, I would say the victim should be able to do so as well. I certainly do not think a vote or a debate in this Chamber on the question would be appropriate. We cannot possibly have an informed debate on something of that level of detail without risking a breach of confidentiality, as has been mentioned, and indeed possible inadvertent breaches of sub judice rules. This is not the right forum for matters of that nature to be debated or discussed; they should be left to a private panel away from the glare of the Chamber. I would presume that, if a Member did have an opportunity to make a representation to the panel, they would deny any wrongdoing. I would hope that, unlike with the ICGS, that denial would not be seen as a reason to double down on punishment.”
“I believe that the risk assessment process and the adjudication panel are as good a way as possible to deal with that question of risk. The panel will have ample opportunity to weed out vexatious complaints—another concern that has been raised. That is another reason why we should accept that the threshold for involvement can be lower than a formal charge. It is not clear from the report what opportunity there will be for the Member affected to make representations. The Leader of the House suggested that there would be such an opportunity, but I did not see that set out in the formal process in the report. It would be a good thing for the Member affected to have that opportunity to make representation and the adjudication panel would probably be the right stage for that.”
“The fact that we are not voting on the proposals tonight shows that there are issues still and that we do not yet have our own house in order on this question, but it is vital that we address it. As the report states, the great majority of Members who responded do not oppose the principle of excluding Members for allegations of violent or sexual acts. Just two Members who responded to the consultation disagreed, citing the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We have heard that mentioned a number of times in the debate, but I think people are conflating a non-prejudicial suspension with a finding of guilt. In every workplace it is quite possible to suspend someone without having a finding of guilt attached to them. We are not going to be replacing the role of the court.”
“A number of hon. Members have talked about how we should be following the lead of every other workplace: if there is a risk in the workplace, the employer has a duty to take steps to minimise that risk. As far as I can see, the only reason there is even a debate about this is not that Members are some special category of people who deserve to be treated differently, but that there is a clear question being ventilated tonight about striking the right balance between ensuring that people are able to work in a safe environment free from fear, and ensuring that people who are here to represent their constituents are not disenfranchised by being forced to leave the estate.”
“I came to this place to fight for better working conditions for everyone in this country, including people who work here. It is only right that we should aim to be one of the best places to work. As the shadow Leader of the House said, we should be an exemplar of good employment practice. Frankly, it took too long to introduce the independent complaints and grievance process, and the experience of it to date suggests it has not reached the stage of development where it carries everyone’s confidence. There are definitely lessons to be learned from the experience so far, but we are heading in the right direction. The issue being discussed tonight is part of that journey towards this becoming, as far as is possible, a safe and secure place of work, just as we would want for all our constituents and just as every other employer should be.”
“Let me take us back five years, to when Dame Laura Cox told us that this place has “a culture of…deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.” The House of Commons staff who bravely came forward at the time, shared their stories and gave evidence to Dame Laura felt for the first time that they were being listened to and that they had not spoken out in vain. There was a sense that we were beginning a process that would oversee real change in the culture of this place. Five years on, we must ask ourselves: can we be confident that the change in culture that the Cox report said was absolutely necessary has happened?”
“On behalf of Opposition Members, may I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments in respect of the people of India? In the north-west, we were hoping that the formation of GBR might have been on track by now to help us deal with the chronically underperforming Avanti West Coast, but we see no sign of the legislation. Parliament certainly has the time to deal with it—we finished after a couple of hours on Tuesday—and it is certainly not a question of money, as we know £50 million has already been spent on the project. What exactly is the problem with bringing the matter before the House? Is it a lack of political will, or is it a lack of competence?”
“Can we have a debate, please, about the Crown Estate? It took ownership of a canopy by some shops in Little Sutton in my constituency, although it claims that it does not actually own it, because it does not want to repair it. However, it still owns it in the sense that it would charge the council £5,000 to take over responsibility for it. At the moment, no one is taking responsibility for it, and it is dangerous. We are in this silly legal lacuna where no one seems to want to deal with the problem. Given that the Crown Estate gives hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the Treasury, it seems ridiculous that we are in this state, so I wondered whether we could have a debate on how the Crown Estate actually operates.”
“The Minister has dressed this up in a lot of legal language, but in essence it is a nakedly political decision to operate in this way. I wonder why, when the principle of the inquiry deciding what is relevant is well established and Baroness Hallett was appointed to the inquiry 18 months ago, this issue has arisen only now? The Minister will be aware that it raises huge concerns about what is going on here. If he has total confidence in Baroness Hallett, as he appears to do, he should be confident that when he hands over documents that he considers completely irrelevant, she will come to the same conclusion, no one will ever see them and there will be no embarrassment to the Government. What is the problem with that approach?”
“This is a global race and I fear that, with the US Inflation Reduction Act, we are being left behind. I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware of last week’s comments by Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall Ellesmere Port, about the need for urgent investment in the move to electric vehicle production. The Faraday Institution has reported that we need between five and 10 gigafactories in the UK to protect the automotive sector, and at the moment we have one, maybe two, coming on stream. How many does the Secretary of State think we need to save the automotive sector?”
“Maybe the competition is not up to much, but I believe that he has the cognitive skills to recognise that leasehold as a form of tenure is an intellectual dead end for the freeholders, for his party and for anyone who tries to defend it. The Law Commission has given us the route out of this mess and the case has been made, but what is lacking is leadership from the very top and the courage to say that this is a priority and this injustice has to come to an end. I believe that all those on the Government Front Bench should go back to the Prime Minister and deliver the simple message that if his party does not want to deal with this issue, it should stand aside and make way for one that does.”
“It is an arrangement that no other country in the world has sought to replicate. We know that this Government are not keen on international comparisons but perhaps that ought to tell us something. It is clear from this debate that just about everyone agrees that something needs to change, but I am not confident that we will see change any time soon. I thought the Government were all about taking back control. Do they not realise that a leaseholder does not have control? How can they have control if someone is trying to use their home as a cash cow? It is a shame that the Secretary of State is not here today to hear this debate. Perhaps he is interviewing the next Housing Minister, given that we have one every couple of months. He is probably the most able member of the Cabinet.”
“We need a crackdown on unfair fees and contract terms through the publication of a list of reasonable charges, requiring transparency on service charges and giving leaseholders a right to challenge rip-off fees and conditions or poor performance from service companies. We must end the right of third-party landlords to build on other people’s homes without considering their interests, their safety or the quality of their homes. We need to squeeze the freeholders until the pips squeak. This debate is, at its root, about power, who holds it and how it is exercised. Who owns the land holds the power. That has always been true in this country, but we have moved on from the barons and the lords of the manor to the offshore private equity companies—a 21st-century update of the feudal arrangements that have for so long held this country back.”
“Leasehold has clearly had its day, but we need the Government to finally consign it to the history books. The pieces are all in place. The knotty legal issues have been untangled and the argument that leasehold has had its day has been won. What is missing is the political will to get that change over the line. In particular we need to see greater powers for residents over the management of their homes, with new rights for flat owners to form residents’ associations and a simplification of the right to manage. We need leaseholders to have the right to extend a lease to 990 years with zero ground rent at any time, and we need to bring forward reform to the process of enfranchisement valuation for leaseholders, including on marriage values, and prescribing rates for the calculations of the premium.”
“If someone buys a home, that should be it; it should be theirs. It should not be a virtually unregulated income stream for an offshore investor who sees that home as just another number on the balance sheet. As we have seen reported in the Financial Times last week, throughout history the cost of leasehold and freehold homes has generally moved in lockstep, but over the last five years the price of freehold properties has continued to rise but leasehold homes have not kept pace. There is no doubt that the Grenfell tragedy has played a huge part in that, as the inadequacies of the building safety regime have been laid bare, but I also believe that the general toxicity of leasehold as a form of housing tenure, with people unable to sell their homes, has played its part.”
“Then there was the biggest insult of the lot: the ground rent. Initially, it was a modest fee, but a price escalator was hidden away in the small print. Sometimes it would double after 10 years, then double again after another 10 years, and so on. For some leaseholders, in a relatively short period their property became unsellable. The linking of ground rents to RPI is becoming a real issue with inflation so high, even making some of the outrageous doubling ground rent clauses seem reasonable in comparison. That is putting people in hardship, and it is the biggest insult of the lot because ground rent is, literally, money for nothing. Its payment is a complete legal nonsense that does not stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. I do not give Vauxhall another £100 every time I drive in my Astra.”
“That greed enabled a whole host of fees to be artificially generated, ensuring that every homeowner would be paying far more than they should, for each and every generation to come. What is the justification for those fees, except that it is what people have been signed up to, unwittingly and with poor legal advice? Well, we know what the CMA thinks about that argument. Prices quoted by the developer to purchase the freehold when the property was initially sold rose four, five or even 10 times higher once the developer had sold their interest on. Hundreds of pounds were being demanded for minor alterations to the property and thousands requested if planning permission was sought. Their home, the biggest single purchase most people will ever make in their life, had been turned into a cash converter for the anonymous freeholder.”
“It is seven years since the sickness at the heart of our housing system was exposed, but for those who have been victims of the scandal, it seems very little has changed. They remain victims to this day. We cannot allow that to continue. It is worth reminding ourselves why the issue has come up the political agenda. For me, the lightbulb moment came after I was approached by a couple of constituents who were concerned about having to pay ground rent on their newly purchased home—a home that was the sort of standard new-build construction that can be found anywhere in the country. Why were those properties leasehold at all? There were no common parts or complicated land ownership. The only reason these properties were leasehold was greed.”
“I remind the House of my opening comments in a debate that took place in this Chamber on leasehold: “What we are discussing today is nothing short of a national scandal. It is the payment protection insurance of the house building industry. Every now and again a sharp practice comes to light which is totally unconscionable and of which every reasonable person would say, “We cannot allow this to continue. Parliament must act.” This is one such occasion.” —[ Official Report , 20 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 1342.] I believe those sentiments have become widely shared by Members across this House, as details of the leasehold scandal have come to light. Indeed, those words could have been easily spoken by any number of Members, on either side, speaking today. But when did I actually say those words? 2016, some seven years ago.”
“I would like to start by taking the House back to 2012, when the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) was Housing Minister and appeared on Channel 4 to speak about leasehold, and said that only a “tiny, tiny, tiny” number of landlords caused problems. Since then, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, with Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly, along with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), Jim Fitzpatrick, when he was a Member of this place, and the National Leasehold Campaign, have proved that analysis to be completely wrong. Let us be clear: those are the people who have contributed time and again to make this the issue that has led us to the debate today. I got involved in the issue shortly after I was elected to this place.”
“In her opening comments, the Minister referred to the reason why this motion has been tabled, which is media speculation that there is some backtracking from the Government’s commitments on this issue. The motion very clearly says that the Secretary of State should give an oral statement in one month’s time, and the fact that he is not here today sends a terrible message about his and the Government’s priorities. Surely, in the absence of the Secretary of State, the answer is to support the motion.”
“Ministers have promised an employment Bill more than 20 times, but they have consistently failed to deliver. It seems that not a week goes by without a company in the gig economy announcing that it is stripping back workers’ rights and protections, presumably because they are confident that this Government will not legislate to introduce protections in the gig economy. Will the Minister come clean on the Government’s plans? If they are not going to bring in any protections for gig economy workers, will he now apologise to them for another failed promise?”