Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on her excellent maiden speech. When I was first elected, I thought it would be difficult to get to know my 71 Liberal Democrat colleagues, but I realise that the challenge is considerably bigger for those on the Labour Benches, so I wish her well with that. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues on Somerset council for their work over recent years, in very difficult circumstances. The previous Government may have introduced the bus fare cap, but that did not go far enough to outweigh the decimation of public transport and bus services over decades in this country, both by central Government and Somerset county council, which cut services throughout Somerset. For example, in 2019, shortly before the Liberal Democrats took control of Somerset, the Conservative county council proposed closing the park and ride services in Taunton. Park and ride is vital to the whole system of integrated public transport, and was an innovation of the noughties, built by a Liberal Democrat council. Although there were plans for the closure of the park and ride service, my colleagues who run the district council stepped up and saved it. They restructured fares, and the service is now once again profitable and does not require a subsidy. That shows that with a commitment to public transport and political will, such services can be made viable and can be sustained. During these years of real challenge for local government, I give credit to Somerset council for bringing back night buses. I was delighted to meet the first night bus out of Taunton, which means we can now travel between Taunton and Wellington in my constituency until midnight every night on a weekday. I was out there with Mike driving his first night bus last year. It is a fantastic improvement. The fare cap in Taunton meant that tickets were reduced to £1, not just £2. Shockingly, following privatisation, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), the companies closed the bus station in Taunton and sold it off. I am delighted that the council is bringing forward plans to have a transport hub once again in Taunton town centre, so that people do not have to stand shivering on pavements in the county town, getting rained on, to catch buses. I credit the Government for the £6 million in bus service improvement plan funding, which is genuinely welcome. We would obviously have liked more and it is disappointing to see the bus cap increase to £3. As the hon. Member for East Thanet rightly pointed out, no money was pledged to support that service by the last Government. I understand the challenges, but we would have taxed big banks and big energy companies more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) pointed out, so that we could fund some of these things to a higher level. Before I leave bus services, I must mention that in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there is one part of Somerset where young people—students—get no discount at all on their bus fare. If they want to attend college as a sixth-former in my part of Somerset, they have to pay £900 per year just to get there and back. That is a prohibitively high bus fare to pay to get to college. I am working closely with councillors on Somerset council and I hope it will be possible to bring forward a discount scheme for students in our part of Somerset, like those that exist in other parts of Somerset and other parts of the country. I will move on to the vital importance of rail in Taunton and Wellington and my part of Somerset. We have the fantastic West Somerset steam railway, which I invite all hon. Members to come and visit. It takes us from Bishops Lydeard, just outside Taunton, down to Minehead and the famous Butlin’s—I know that all Members will want to go there, and they can enjoy the steam journey over to it. A strategic outline business case has recently been submitted by West Somerset Railway to the Department for Transport to connect that railway with Taunton station so that it would have a mainline station connection, providing both a commuter service to Bishops Lydeard on the edge of Taunton and direct access to one of the best heritage railways in the country. Perhaps more important than any of those things is the Wellington and Cullompton stations project. I recognise that there are station opening projects across the country that Members across the House will be championing as their favourite, but I must say that my understanding of the Wellington and Cullompton stations project is that, because it is a two-station project that would deliver two stations in one, it has the best benefit-cost ratio of any railway station reopening project in the country at 3.67. I said that like I understand Treasury benefit-cost ratio numbers; I only wish that were true. I am reliably informed, however, that anything above one is a really high benefit-cost ratio. On that ground alone, the project should qualify for funding, and it would bring £3.3 million of benefit to the local economy. After all, growth is vital to the whole country, and reopening Wellington station would unlock thousands of homes around Wellington. We have a town council that wants Wellington to thrive and grow. The project to bring that railway station was very close to getting shovels in the ground. In July, the project had reached its final business case. The detailed design was ongoing—there was just a small amount of money needed to complete it—and then the Government froze the whole programme. However, I was assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget debate that the station would go ahead. We are still waiting to hear why the most financially beneficial station reopening project in the country has not yet got the go-ahead. I am very grateful to Lord Hendy, the Minister for Rail, for the two meetings we have had. I know that the Government are supportive and sympathetic, but we need this project to get back on track—I am sorry, but it is impossible to avoid railway puns in this debate. The station is so ready to be built. We have a lot of third-party funding coming in. The access road and the car park are funded by a third-party developer. Cullompton, in the neighbouring constituency, is putting in similar third-party funding. We urgently need that project to go ahead. We wish to secure the economic growth that Somerset needs, but we have lost £2 billion-worth of transport projects over the past few months. The A303 and the A358 have been cancelled. We desperately need a bypass for the villages of Thornfalcon and Henlade, which that A358 project would have completed. With all these projects being taken away, surely it is time that we received the funding for the new stations project at Wellington and Cullompton, with all its excellent economic growth impacts.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is trying to comprehensively address all the comments in the debate. I realise he cannot comment on individual projects, but will he undertake to inform the Secretary of State of the need to release funding for the most important restoring your railway projects?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses such as Sheppy’s cider farm in my constituency, to which I invite all Members to come to enjoy a pint of cider, will be affected not just by the national insurance rises but by the change in business rates and the family farm tax?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Business Rates: High Street Retailers · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses like Mr Miles in Taunton High Street are being hit hard by the changes in taxes for hospitality businesses, including the increase in the wage bill and national insurance contributions, and the massive increase in business rates. That business is now considering reducing its opening hours, which would make our high street less vibrant than it should be. One challenge is the £50,000 rateable value limit for the discount, as many high street premises have a rateable value of more than £50,000. Will the Chancellor consider reviewing the limit placed on the business rates discount for small businesses?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Like Members across the House, Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved and their immediate community of family, friends and neighbours as they mourn the 72, including children, who tragically lost their lives in June 2017. In this debate, surely one thing matters more than anything: that their memory must be respected. But, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 report on the underlying cause of the fire graphically lays bare, they were cruelly let down by the systems, companies, Governments and government bodies that should have protected them. We welcome the Government’s commitment to address all the recommendations in the report, and the Prime Minister’s promise in response to the phase 2 report to take the necessary steps to speed up the rate at which unsafe cladding is removed from buildings and to ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. However, the National Audit Office has said that the pace of remediation work is behind where it should be and called for the onus to be placed on developers to pay for the work. Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s figures show that works have begun in 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding, it is deeply worrying, seven years on, that 66% are waiting and that thousands of people in the UK are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcements about accelerating progress. As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, 90% of Government funding for the work so far has been received by private building owners, but many have passed the costs of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, putting many, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. Leaseholders have struggled under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering from huge increases in insurance premiums, as we have heard. We therefore call for the removal of all such dangerous cladding as soon as possible without tenants and leaseholders—including non-qualifying leaseholders —having to pay. After all, they placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down, so they should not have to pay a penny towards that work. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, product manufacturers surely should be paying. The whole picture points to the need to create a legally enforceable order to remediate premises so that they are safe on pain of criminal sanction. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister said about that a few moments ago. Seven years on from this scandal, it is time for justice both for the victims and all those living with potentially unsafe cladding. The inquiry report clearly establishes lessons to be learned for every authority in the land. The “pathway to disaster”, as Sir Martin called it, is chilling. It is incumbent on all of us in the House and everyone connected with the built environment and fire safety, not least those in my own professions—as an architect and town planner, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to ensure that change happens and to take forward the report’s recommendations. The Architects Registration Board, working with the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to monitor the training and development that architects complete throughout their careers. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this year it is mandatory for all architects to complete training in fire safety. But there is one factor that comes through in the fateful chain of events that led to the fire in 2017, and it is one that had a devastating effect on the lives of so many: the promotion of gaining commercial advantage at the expense of building and fire safety. The inquiry said that the Building Research Establishment—originally a public body but privatised in the ’90s—exhibited in its testing of dangerous cladding “a desire to accommodate existing customers and to retain its status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.” The inquiry reports says that the supplier companies “engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment…was complicit in that strategy.” Since the privatisation of building inspectors in the 1980s—a move with which even the most commercially minded partners at the practice I worked in a few years later strongly disagreed—they have also faltered as a result of commercial pressures, with a resultant unacceptable blurring of responsibilities. Sir Martin’s report concludes that the privatised inspector NHBC “failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its…customers”. The report goes on: “We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.” It is also clear that NHBC practices exposed what remains of local authority building control to similarly unscrupulous competition, and has driven down standards there as a result.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so many times. Is it not the case that when you set profit-making companies against local authorities, you end up with a race to the bottom, across the board? Is that not the evidence from the inquiry? I had cause to look at the report of the original debate, in the 1980s, about bringing in private inspectors. A less than entirely left-wing organisation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said that it was opposed to building control being taken away from local authorities.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree. It is clear from my time in the profession that the exposure of local authority building control to private competition, with which it is difficult to compete, has led to a race to the bottom. In fact, hon. Members should not take my word for it; expert witness Professor Luke Bisby summed it up: “A culture shift in building control had gradually occurred, from one of building control actors ‘policing’ developers to one of them ‘working with clients’ under commercial duress. This resulted in a ‘race to the bottom’”. Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support the recommendation for the Government to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. We would go further and say that the evidence to the inquiry is such that commercial interests cannot be in the public interest, and that both the Building Research Establishment and building inspectors should be brought back under public control. We also urge social housing providers to pay particular attention to their new requirements under the Social Housing Act (Regulation) 2023, and to the need for better inspection and timely remediation of defects. We also strongly endorse the need for a recognised profession of fire engineer. It is important, too, that our local fire services are properly funded. I was concerned about the reduction in the number of appliances at Taunton fire station, and I have written to the Treasury on behalf of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority, asking the Government for flexibility in funding and tax-raising powers. It is vital that no further reduction of appliances at stations such as mine go ahead. We support all 58 recommendations in the report, whether for local authorities, the fire brigade, tenant management organisations or local authorities, or on personal emergency evacuation plans being put in place —it is good to see the Government establishing that today—or indeed for the Government themselves. Since what has turned out to be the fatal folly of promoting commercial interest above building and fire safety in the decades from the ’80s and ’90s, Governments of all persuasions have let down some of our most vulnerable citizens. The situation has been reviewed many times over the years by Governments of all stripes. It is now time to put safety once again before profit.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. I am also concerned about the influx of children going to local authorities to apply for EHCPs because they will now need them to get the discount, and about the massive effect that will have on already overstretched local authorities. I worry about how they are going to cope with those applications, over and above the SEN crisis at the moment. I am a great supporter of state schools, partly because of the record of the Liberal Democrats, who not only ringfenced the education budget in the first years of the coalition, but injected £1.25 billion by inventing the pupil premium, which now injects £3 billion— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) shakes her head, but these are the facts.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who spoke for the official Opposition—he is no longer in his place—described the Conservative Government’s approach to supporting business. I was going to say that I listened to him with interest, but I think incredulity would be a better word. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who is no longer in his place, was rather harsh on the Conservatives. He said that they never followed up on their commitments on business and did not have a clear policy on business. The Conservatives had a very clear and pithily described policy on business: it began with f, had k in the middle and ended with the word “business”. And believe me, they delivered on that policy with their post-Brexit trade deal. In case the message had not been rammed home hard enough, they confirmed it with a Budget that played helter-skelter chaos with the economy. I therefore sympathise with the new Government’s approach in terms of the Budget they are trying to set and in terms of establishing stability. That is something I would want to support, but I am disappointed that I will not be able to vote for the Bill because of the effect it will have on towns like Wellington and Taunton, which will be hit by a triple whammy. Those towns support some great independent schools, which are charities: Taunton school, Wellington school, King’s College and Queen’s College. They sustain around 1,000 jobs in the constituency, many of which are now under threat. Many workers at those schools—cleaners and catering staff—are worried about what is going to happen. There are then the very serious effects of the rise in national insurance contributions on small businesses, particularly the many small businesses whose rateable value is over £51,000. That is quite typical for SMEs in a high street in this country—at the smaller end, I would suggest. The owner of Mr Miles Tea Room, a superb place to go in my constituency, has written to tell me about the combined effects of the Budget on his business: “Firstly, all my staff will now see a reduction in the hours they will be scheduled. As a result, no doubt, some will leave. Where many of my employees already earn over the current minimum wage, I will not be able to increase their pay rates by as much as I have done in the past. Secondly, any full-time employees who leave our employment will only be replaced by potentially 2 or 3 part-time employees. Thirdly, I will not be investing in any capital equipment in my kitchen or new decor in my restaurant. Fourthly, there is a serious potential for me to operate on shortened trading hours, thus reducing the vibrancy of the Town Centre.” He goes on: “I was cautiously optimistic that a new Labour Government couldn’t possibly be worse than the previous Tory one in terms of lack of support for SMEs. Sadly, in the space of 3 short months this Government has already proved my optimism was misplaced and there will be many casualties over the next 12 months as the new measures take effect.” I urge the Minister to reconsider both the effect on independent schools, and I am a great supporter of the state school system—

• 25 Nov 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The pupil premium was new money, and it went into the state school sector. It was £1.25 billion in the first year, and it is worth £3 billion now. It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and was delivered as part of our priority for state schools—but I do not believe in state schools just because of party policy. All four of my children attended great state schools in my constituency: Parkfield Primary School, Bishop Fox’s School, and the fantastic Richard Huish College. The idea that the only way to improve state schools is to level down independent schools shows a shocking lack of imagination and a very disappointing approach to education, and education should not be taxed. The Minister said earlier that those of us who were going for a different approach should be willing to make clear where we would raise the money, and he was right to make that point. The Liberal Democrats have made the same point, and they have made tough decisions in the past. In our manifesto was a very clear Budget spending plan to restore the tax on the big banks’ profits. It was slashed and then taken away in 2018, but simply restoring that single tax would raise £4.2 billion for the economy. I urge the Minister to adopt the principle that if the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, that should apply in the business sector as much as anywhere else. The big companies, the big banks, the giant online retailers, should be bearing the burden of this Budget, not the small high street firms like Mr Miles in Taunton High Street and the other businesses we have heard about, so I urge the Minister to think further about this.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Bus Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The £6 million funding for Somerset is clearly welcome, although it is much less than was needed, considering that Somerset was rated as having the worst county bus service in the country. I particularly welcome the ending of the lottery that sets one community against another. Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Somerset bus partnership volunteers who, working with my Liberal Democrat colleagues now running Somerset council, prevented the previous Conservative county council from closing the park and ride, got night buses going and have begun a new transport hub since the bus station in Taunton was closed as a result of Conservative privatisation?

• 12 Nov 2024 · NHS Dentistry: South-west · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister able to say when the timeline for those negotiations will be available?

• 12 Nov 2024 · NHS Dentistry: South-west · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on leading a genuinely important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—to mention but a few. I also thank Government Members for their contributions to this important debate. Nearly three years ago, in 2022, long before I was a Member of Parliament, I launched a survey of dental provision for the NHS in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. It showed that fewer than half of people there had access to an NHS dentist. Nearly three years on things have, incredibly, got worse. There are 64,000 children in the county who did not see a dentist last year. That puts Somerset in the worst-hit 5% of local authorities in the country. As has been mentioned, access to NHS dentists in Somerset has fallen from more than half of people back in 2015 to less than a third—32%—this year. Over half the constituents who contacted me did have an NHS dentist but were then told it was going private, so they lost it. That decline has been consistent. My constituents are having to travel out of county and, as I said in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, one of my constituents, a stage 3 cancer sufferer, is having to use her savings to pay for dental treatment that she is entitled to for free on the national health service. Taunton and Wellington has many of the same problems as other areas of the country, in particular the terrible state of the dental contract, which is at the root of much of this issue. I have met the BDA chair, as have Government Members, and it definitely wants a timescale for the negotiation of the new dental contract. I hope the Minister will give a clear timetable for the negotiations so that we can have a new contract, which is what is needed to unblock this situation. If we are to train and equip the profession for the future, which we need to do, we have to end the uncertainty that is exacerbating the drain from the profession and the retention crisis we have seen over the past few years. It is vital that that uncertainty comes to an end. Uncertainty hits in other ways as well. For example, we all want more housing built—certainly, those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, and I know that Government Members do too—and we want new housing developments to be infrastructure-led, with GP surgeries and dental surgeries. Developers could contribute to those surgeries, but what would be the point in building them if they are to lie empty, unstaffed by the dentists we need? Will the Minister consider whether ICBs can be required to support the finding of dentists to staff those facilities, when they are provided? I put on the record the fact there was a huge £11 million underspend in Somerset last year. Children, pregnant women and cancer sufferers are all being denied free treatment and £11 million is sitting in the coffers—it is a scandal. I hope the Minister will consider ensuring that that money is ringfenced year on year, so that it is ultimately spent on the patients who need treatment. I urge the Minister both to give a timetable for the negotiation of the new contract and to safeguard the underspends so that the money can be used to help patients in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset and in the south-west as a whole.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 98, page 117, line 20, at end insert— “(ia) the availability of which is secured by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016, or sections 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (ib) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use by service personnel; or”. This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to accommodation provided to people on immigration bail and to that provided by the Ministry of Defence to service personnel.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner believes that the commitment from the last Government that the decent homes standard will be applied to Ministry of Defence housing still stands, but the Minister says that the decent homes standard will not apply to MOD homes and instead that the MOD has it under review.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly as I know your expertise in this policy area. Amendment 72 would apply the proposed decent homes standard both to accommodation for refugees and people seeking asylum, and to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for serving personnel. As I stated on Second Reading, it would be perverse, now that we have a decent homes standard for social housing and this Bill proposes a decent homes standard for the private rented sector, to leave our serving military personnel as one of the only groups not benefiting from decent living accommodation. In debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), speaking on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about RAF Shawbury and Tern Hill barracks in north Shropshire, where the service accommodation was plagued by black mould, rat infestations and chronic overcrowding, meaning that individuals who have put their lives on the line for our country are not necessarily guaranteed a warm and safe place to live in return. I agree with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham: “That is no way to treat people who have put their lives on the line to serve this country…they deserve better.” —[ Official Report , 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1004.] I am grateful to the Minister for advising the House on Second Reading of this Bill that “the MOD is reviewing its target standards so that we can drive up the quality of that accommodation separately from the Bill.” —[ Official Report , 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 412.] , but this is a long-running issue, and no doubt any Government at any time on any day in any month would say that they were “reviewing” the situation. Frankly, that is not going far enough. Next week, of course, we will be commemorating those who sacrificed everything for our country. It would be appropriate, would it not, for the Government to take the opportunity under this Bill to commit to giving service personnel a decent homes standard for the public buildings in which they live? I have to say that the Government’s current position is a bit disappointing. I hope that the Minister will update that position, the more so because it falls short of the position taken by the previous Conservative Government, which is something of a surprise from where I am on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope very much that the Minister will update the position. As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will no doubt remember, the former Minister and then Member for Redcar, Jacob Young, in response to the equivalent amendment proposed to the Renters (Reform) Bill by my hon. Friends, made the commitment on Report that the Conservative Government would “ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”. However, he also said: “Service…accommodation has unique features…including a significant portion being located on secure military sites where there will be issues around security and access for inspections.” Therefore, like the Minister today, he recognised the unique challenges. However, he said that with “the appropriate monitoring and reporting arrangements”, the Government “intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”. —[ Official Report , 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.] Can it really be the case that the new Government are backtracking on the commitment of the last Government when it comes to decent homes for our serving military personnel? I certainly hope not. In earlier sittings, this Minister emphasised that the exact nature of the standard would be subject to consultation, and clause 98(4) makes provision for exactly that consultation. I do not suggest that private rented housing would necessarily have poorer standards than the decent homes standard that applies to social housing. However, it is clear in clause 98 that the Government intend to develop a distinct standard appropriate to the private rented sector. What greater opportunity is there for the clause to ensure that the Government also develop a distinct decent homes standard that would be appropriate for the MOD conditions described earlier? Finally, there is no doubt that tenants taking refuge here from war or other disasters in their own countries, who are awaiting determination of their asylum applications and many of whom have served our military and British forces in theatres of war such as Afghanistan, should also be in decent homes. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats believe that asylum seekers should be working for that accommodation, so that they can earn for themselves and pay for it, but that does not take away from the fact that those families should not be in poor accommodation and should have decent homes. I strongly urge the Minister, and the Committee as a whole, to recognise that the Bill provides a legislative opportunity, one that may not come again in this Parliament, to do right by those who should have decent homes. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and finally bring a long-running campaign to a successful conclusion, such that military accommodation will meet the decent homes standard.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given the assurance that the Minister has generously given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 24, in clause 98, page 118, line 27, at end insert— “(ba) a building or part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if— (i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy or is supported exempt accommodation, except where the accommodation which those persons occupy is social housing and the landlord under the tenancy, or the provider of the supported exempt accommodation, is a registered provider of social housing,”. This expands the definition of “qualifying residential premises” — and therefore expands the scope of the power in new section 2A inserted by this clause — so as to catch HMO accommodation which is occupied by only one household (and therefore does not count as an HMO because it is not actually in multiple occupation). Amendment 25, in clause 98, page 118, line 34, after “(b)” insert “, (ba)”.— (Matthew Pennycook.) This is consequential on Amendment 24. Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Decent homes standard Amendments made: 26, in schedule 4, page 186, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— “(3) After subsection (8) insert— ‘9) But unoccupied HMO accommodation is “qualifying residential premises” for the purposes of this Part only to the extent provided for by section 2B(1)(ba).’” This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 27, in schedule 4, page 202, line 5, leave out from second “premises” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “other than— (i) homelessness accommodation (see paragraph B1), or (ii) common parts (see paragraph 4)”. This excludes homelessness accommodation from the scope of the new paragraph A1. Instead it is dealt with by the new paragraph B1 inserted by Amendment 29. (Common parts are already excluded from new paragraph A1.) Amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 202, line 11, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 13 and insert— “(1A) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to the premises if they are— (a) a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy, (b) an HMO where at least one unit of accommodation which forms part of the HMO is let under a relevant tenancy, or (c) a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if— (i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy.” This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 202, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(4) In this paragraph— “common parts” means common parts that are qualifying residential premises by virtue of section 2B(1)(d); “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4). Service of improvement notices: homelessness accommodation (whether or not it is qualifying residential premises) (1) This paragraph applies where the specified premises in the case of an improvement notice are homelessness accommodation (which has the same meaning here as in paragraph A1). (2) The notice must be served on any person— (a) who has an estate or interest in the premises, and (b) who, in the opinion of the local housing authority, ought to take the action specified in the notice. (3) This paragraph applies instead of paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (in a case where that paragraph would otherwise apply to the improvement notice).” The definitions are consequential on Amendment 27. The new paragraph B1 provides for the service of all improvement notices relating to homelessness accommodation (and replaces the current provision which only catches notices about requirements under regulations under section 2A). Amendment 30, in schedule 4, page 203, line 5, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 203, line 8, at end insert “or (c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation— (i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 203, line 12, after “tenancy.” insert— “(2B) Where— (a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises, (b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and (c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation— (i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and (ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)), the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph. (2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).” This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less. Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 203, line 13, leave out “after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “this paragraph””. This is consequential on Amendment 32. Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 203, line 28, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 203, line 31, at end insert “or (c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation— (i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 203, line 35, after “tenancy.” insert— “(2B) Where— (a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises, (b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and (c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation— (i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and (ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)), the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph. (2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).” This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less. Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 203, line 36, leave out “or (2A)” and insert “, (2A) or (2B)”. This is consequential on Amendment 36. Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 203, line 37, leave out “after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2) or (3)” substitute “this paragraph””. This is consequential on Amendment 36. Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 204, line 4, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 204, line 7, at end insert “or (iii) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household and where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.— (Matthew Pennycook.) This is consequential on Amendment 24. Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 99 Financial penalties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is not consistent with what Jacob Young said in 2023, as recorded in Hansar d , namely that the intention was to extend the decent homes standard to cover Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is the intention of the amendment. That is why I tabled it and why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire tabled it in the last parliamentary Session. We are hearing that someone in the MOD has it under review. At the moment, that is not a huge reassurance. The whole subject of MOD housing and the need for serving personnel to benefit from it has been omitted. The Minister mentioned the difficulty of enforcing the decent homes standard because MOD accommodation is behind the wire, but according to him we know that 96% of MOD accommodation would meet the standard. That work has been done, surveys have been carried out and the information is being freely exchanged, so clearly it is not that difficult to inspect the accommodation and understand what standard it meets. All accommodation on MOD bases can be easily accessed with the permission of the officer commanding the base. All sorts of inspections are carried out on MOD bases. I accept that the Government are supportive of the principle of improving the standard of asylum seeker accommodation, but as with MOD housing, the fact that it is under review is not much of an assurance. I therefore will not withdraw the amendment.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is there a timescale within which the MOD plans to report back on its review of the decent homes standard? Does it apply to certain accommodation or is it an open-ended review?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will bob more enthusiastically in future, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and concerns the proliferation of short-term lets, holiday lets, Airbnbs and the like. In June 2023 there were 432,000 short-term rental properties in the UK, a steady increase from the pre-pandemic levels. Growth is particularly significant in regions such as mine. The south-west has the highest volume of listings, with 81,000 properties, while the east midlands saw a 49% rise. The increase is concentrated in holiday locations—the south-west, Cornwall and the Lake district. In Cornwall, more than one in 10 addresses are used as holiday homes, according to the Office for National Statistics. The Liberal Democrat policy would be to license the system. We would like to see holiday lets controlled in a similar way to other rental properties. A licensing system that aligns short-term lets with the requirements of longer-term properties would address disparities in regulation. The danger that we face today is in regulating the private rented sector but not moving forward on the regulation of short-term lets. That would create disparity and could lead to the leeching of more homes into the Airbnb, short-term let sector. We also want to see the creation of a new planning use class for short-term and holiday lets. I am aware that most recently, in February, although it has repeatedly come up, the then Government stated that planning permission would be required for short-term lets—that is lets of more than 90 nights per year—and that a mandatory national register would be created. We are waiting for that, and we are interested to know what the new Government will do in that policy area. Landlord groups such as the National Residential Landlords Association and Dexters letting agency have argued that the Bill risks pushing landlords out of the sector and into short-term holiday lets. The NRLA estimates a 1% to 2% drop in rental stock. There is agreement on the topic across the sector, and there is a plausible worry that without any additional controls there will be a leeching of stock into more short-term holiday lets. For locations that particularly suffer from that phenomenon, the consequences could be the closure of businesses and services locally. New clause 7 would put into the Bill a requirement for a review of the legislation’s impact on the provision of short-term lets, so that the issue can be controlled.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. In view of the Minister saying that the matter is beyond doubt, I am happy to withdraw the clause.