Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Jennifer, an American citizen, came here in 2018 on a spousal visa, which was renewed in 2022. She applied for indefinite leave to remain in May last year. The Government website says: “you’ll usually be told whether your application has been successful within 6 months.” It has been 10 months. Jennifer’s now expired visa has given her employer concerns about her right to work, and that financial uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that she cannot be added to the couple’s mortgage, which affects the works they need to do on their home. Jennifer has tried and I have tried, so I wonder whether the Leader of the House could try to raise this case with her colleagues in the Home Office to see what has happened, get it sorted and reduce the stress that this delay is causing Jennifer and her family.

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am particularly keen that he looks at the multiple layers of sign-off and the bureaucracy that sometimes forgets patients are at the other end of it. Hospitals in England have had to rely on charitable fundraising to buy some of the most cutting-edge radiotherapy machines because of NHS England’s policies and bureaucracy. This year, highly advanced machines such as the CyberKnife, which have treated thousands of NHS cancer patients over the past 10 years, will need upgrading, but NHS England is refusing to include them in this year’s funding because they were all bought by charities. The Secretary of State talked about giving people the tools to do the job. Could he change that policy, so that our hospitals do not have to continue relying on charities for the latest technology?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State greatly for giving way. I recognise what clauses 45 to 54 say about the mandatory duty in England to report child sexual abuse, and I wonder if I might draw her attention to the fact that there are exceptions dating back to 1603, under canon law, for confessions relating to treason. There is also precedent in section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to terrorism, which covers faith leaders. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might help the various churches, faith leaders and volunteers in England to make sure that they mandatorily report when they come across this stuff in confession?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for everything he has done over the last few days—it has been admirable. Will he endeavour to ensure that we prioritise military spending on outcomes rather than, strictly, the amount of money that is spent? The rush to avoid criticism of underspending often means that cost-effectiveness can be lost. Should not the defence and international aid budgets be viewed as a rolling average over several years rather than annually, to avoid the accounting gymnastics that might otherwise happen every March?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  King Lifting Ltd is a west country firm that operates mostly mobile cranes across the UK. The company holds a Home Office licence for sponsorship, but cannot employ the heavy crane operators it needs. The work is not for everyone because it involves long stays away from home working on major infrastructure projects, such as wind farms, High Speed 2 and our nuclear sites. Operators qualify as individuals not through the company and must also be experienced. Every time King Lifting advertises, it gets dozens of applicants, almost all from abroad, and the company trains and tests heavy crane operators to meet the UK’s high standards. Please may we have a debate on adding crane operators to the UK immigration skilled workers eligible occupations list?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on calling this debate and I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on the points they have made.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, and I add Tiverton and Minehead to my list. First, let me quote one of the people who wrote to me. They said: “It’s such a great scheme because the volunteers who raise money for church repairs find it such hard work making multiple lengthy applications for grants with usually little to show in return. This VAT relief once you have raised the funds is the one thing that is certain and takes the edge of all the effort”. I recognise that in 2024 this scheme already gave 5,000 listed places of worship the benefit of returning up to £42 million from the Government to congregations across the country. That £42 million is a fixed annual pot, and there are, I understand, over 7,000 applications. I will briefly indulge in talking about my own constituency, which I know the Minister has visited on occasion. I have had numerous communications with people, mainly from churches, but also, significantly, from Wells cathedral, where I saw Jethro Tull play a few years ago. The variety of activities is enormous. My partner and I should probably declare an interest; my partner played table tennis in Christ church at Theale last week. Holy Trinity church in Blackford has carols with vast slugs of wine provided to the whole congregation, St Cuthbert’s at Wells has a crib festival and St John the Baptist in Axbridge hosts the annual community awards presentation. There are others such as the Holy Trinity church in Burrington and St Mary Magdalene church in Wookey Hole. All of those places have Remembrance Sunday services where we recall the duty that people have paid to this country. My local church, St Mary’s in Wedmore, runs “The Clash of the Choirs”, which is now world famous, I have to say, and sounds sedate, but is actually a joyous celebration of all sorts of singing, school choirs, folk, handbells and a unique clap-o-meter. There are also the city of Wells almshouses, which are home to some of our more vulnerable elderly citizens. The chapel of St Saviour is benefiting at this moment from works that are being carried out under this scheme. One of the things I would like the Minister to consider is the conditions that are required for people to claim under this scheme, in which the VAT refund is dependent on having work commissioned, carried out and paid for against a VAT invoice of £1,000 or more—as I understand it—and only then can the church submit a claim. One of my concerns is that if this scheme is to be reduced, or stopped and wound up, then I ask the Minister for great understanding and for transition arrangements for those churches and chapels that already have works in train. It is quite difficult for people to get that work done, particularly when a number of my communities have been suffering from flooding and various other things, meaning that the number of available contractors has also been reduced. I will not carry on in too much detail, but I was very pleased to receive a letter from the Secretary of State that recognised that, “Listed places of worship hold great cultural and historical significance, representing some of the nation’s finest heritage.” I am grateful that the Minister and Secretary of State recognise that, and I would ask for some tolerance and kindness in continuing this scheme, which is so important to our various communities.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many of us will remember the devastation that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 caused in rural England. I am pleased that the Government have restricted commercial imports of susceptible animals and personal imports of animal products. However, I was reminded yesterday by James, a farmer in my area, that last time, our high biosecurity standards saw the dipping of vehicles and footwear. Can we have a debate focusing on the movement of people and vehicles into the UK from affected areas—whether by road, rail, ferry or air—to prevent transmission of the virus, and particularly the installing of large notices at airports for incoming and transit passengers to declare such products?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation. May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny. One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC—

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I want to mention the shocking damage to tourism, given the number of people who leave Paddington and try to go west. My constituents are stunned to find that all this has only just come to light—my hon. Friend referred to six years of closure; I have heard seven, and we all know that projects overrun. I also want to reiterate his point that first-class travel is meaningless on GWR, because those trains are almost always overcrowded—people going west in first class have to stand in the corridor, sit on their suitcases or find somewhere else. Also, the Glastonbury festival finishes on a Sunday, and many people travel in and out of Glastonbury on a Sunday, so this will be incredibly damaging to that event.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes, small actions can help. A number of my constituents were incredibly concerned that premises owned by my local council were occupied by a company that they perceived to have been administratively involved in supplying parts for the arms business. The council has now relinquished its interest in that building. Would my hon. Friend recognise that?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I am reassured in part, but I would be delighted if we can look further at walrus. I do not understand why we would not protect the walrus and the warthog. Closing off the trade in the four species that the Minister mentioned might enhance people’s desire to hunt the walrus and the warthog, so I do not understand the logic of not protecting them. Nothing would be lost by protecting those species.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  None the less, I ask the Minister to recognise that warthogs are declining in number and are on the red list. I am happy to discuss the issue with her later, but I want to ensure that we watch our warthogs.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wonder if I might reiterate the request in respect of the walrus: I understand that it is protected by the Seal Products Regulations 2010, but I want to be clear about the loopholes in that legislation. Could the Government monitor the online and physical trade—for example, in auction houses—to make sure that there are equivalent protections for the walrus? The second species I want to mention is the warthog. It is not CITES-listed, but its teeth are traded and its numbers declining, so it needs to be carefully monitored. It is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list. Although it is not at serious risk of extinction, I urge the Government to please look at protecting it, because its teeth are traded. However, we are happy to support the SI; it has been a very long time coming, and I am glad the Government are bringing it forward. Finally, I point out that the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which tackles puppy smuggling, was introduced by my colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  And the warthogs?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I am reassured in part, but I would be delighted if we can look further at walrus. I do not understand why we would not protect the walrus and the warthog. Closing off the trade in the four species that the Minister mentioned might enhance people’s desire to hunt the walrus and the warthog, so I do not understand the logic of not protecting them. Nothing would be lost by protecting those species.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  None the less, I ask the Minister to recognise that warthogs are declining in number and are on the red list. I am happy to discuss the issue with her later, but I want to ensure that we watch our warthogs.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wonder if I might reiterate the request in respect of the walrus: I understand that it is protected by the Seal Products Regulations 2010, but I want to be clear about the loopholes in that legislation. Could the Government monitor the online and physical trade—for example, in auction houses—to make sure that there are equivalent protections for the walrus? The second species I want to mention is the warthog. It is not CITES-listed, but its teeth are traded and its numbers declining, so it needs to be carefully monitored. It is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list. Although it is not at serious risk of extinction, I urge the Government to please look at protecting it, because its teeth are traded. However, we are happy to support the SI; it has been a very long time coming, and I am glad the Government are bringing it forward. Finally, I point out that the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which tackles puppy smuggling, was introduced by my colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  And the warthogs?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Last week, the Government released their latest departmental lobbying transparency data. The data was two months late and relates to the last months of the previous Government, namely April to June 2024. The public will learn who the new Government met during their first weeks in power only at the end of December, a full six months after the election, and that is only if the data is released on time. UK lobbying rules have more holes than Swiss cheese, so will the Government set a timeline for creating a central database of departmental transparency data, with monthly updates, thereby closing the litany of loopholes in the current lobbying rules?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Rachel was a village postmistress in my constituency, and her life was smashed to pieces by the Horizon scandal. Her claim was decided by a body of professionals put together to work these things out. It was submitted, and the Post Office had 40 days to respond. On the 38th day, the Post Office asked two questions, which were answered on day 39, but the timetable was reset right back to zero. She is now 23 days into the second lot of 40 days, and she still has no offer. She says it is “mentally battering”, and I say it is not fair. Can we have a debate on how we stop big corporations, and the Post Office in particular, playing games with little people, whom they have ruined—financially and reputationally—and continue to bully?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues. Sophisticated business entities are probably the intended target of the legislation, so there is good news for people who have divided their property assets, and bad luck for those who jointly own their property investments, which is a terribly random criterion. It was shocking enough for my constituents to find out that the nine-year-old building in which their flat sits had a cladding issue, but due to the fact that they jointly owned four properties on 14 February 2022, they were left largely unprotected. They are not like the developers or cladding suppliers. Not only that, but their status as non-qualifying leaseholders has been attached to their flat in perpetuity. Even after all the remediation work has taken place, centuries have passed—currently, this is another 990 years on the lease —and they have departed this world, every future owner of their flat will inherit the same diminished lease, while neighbouring flats are protected from the costs of making the building safe. The impact of the legislation is profound. Solicitors are advising their clients not to buy any flat with the non-qualified leaseholder status attached, even after the fire safety work has been completed. Lenders are refusing to lend on properties of that status. The values are expected to reduce considerably, possibly by as much as 50%. Estate agents realise that trying to sell properties with this status is pretty much a lost cause. Non-qualified leaseholders cannot sell their flats—they are mostly flats—and cannot mitigate the risks they have been exposed to. If a leaseholder has a 75% mortgage and the value drops by 50%, it is easy to see how financial crisis can hit ordinary people who saved hard, invested in bricks and mortar and are providing homes for rent all over the country, helping alleviate our housing crisis. Insurance premiums are sky high. If this continues, it is likely that lenders will not want to take possession if there is a default on the mortgage, because they themselves would become liable. Leaving a flat with this status in a will may expose family and friends to long-term problems associated with its status, as they will potentially inherit a liability not an asset. The legislation has removed a whole tier of property from the ever-increasing number of young buyers and those who want to downsize, such as older citizens. It is clear that without the support of surveyors, agents, solicitors and lenders, it will become increasingly hard to secure one’s first or last home. Whatever one’s political ideals, surely we all agree that there is a terrible shortage of affordable homes, and the affordable end of the market often comes in the shape of a leasehold flat. I cannot find the path of logic through this legislation. I have no idea who tried to think this one through—I recognise that it was not the Minister. It seems deeply unfair that someone’s legal rights can be different from those who own flats in the same building, just because my constituents had four or more properties in their ownership on 14 February. Will the Minister try to explain the logic, though I recognise he did not write the legislation? It would be nice if his opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would have a crack at trying to tell me how it works—I just do not get it. It is a bit like someone having their car recalled for a safety issue and having to pay to correct the problem and any other safety problem in the future due to the fact that they and their family have three other cars between them, and they might want to sell the car once the safety fault is fixed. This is madness. The Minister is on the record as having confirmed that the Building Safety Act 2022 was written to safeguard the health and safety of those who lived in the affected buildings. If a non-qualified leaseholder has a leasehold flat as their principal flat, they are protected. What about the tenants who live in the flats owned by private landlords who are in this trap? Are they not important enough to be protected, too? The Minister further confirmed in a letter last month that once the property is brought up to standard and safety remedies are completed, in the years ahead “the expectation is that the qualification point should essentially become moot”. There is plenty in the Government’s guidelines about non-qualifying leasehold status remaining with the property in perpetuity. I can find absolutely nothing about it becoming moot. I wonder how the Minister sees that being legislated for. On the subject of Government guidelines, they are so complicated and hard to interpret that solicitors are at loggerheads over their ramifications. My constituents’ management company initially confirmed that they would be liable for all the costs associated with cladding remediation works, even if the building were accepted into the cladding safety scheme—that is, until my constituents were able to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to them confirming that they would be protected under the cladding safety scheme. However, it fell to my constituents to get proof and to convince their management company. Worse than that, the Department advises owners to contact LEASE—the Leasehold Advisory Service—to establish their rights. LEASE confirmed both on the phone and in writing that my constituents did not qualify for any help or support in the cladding safety scheme. They were advised by others in the same predicament to contact the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm who should indicate whether non-qualifying leaseholders are covered by the cladding safety scheme? These Government Departments are set up to help and guide people such as my constituents, yet they are giving completely conflicting advice. That situation has caused my constituents anguish, sleepless nights and constant worry about the possible life-changing financial burden that may be heading their way. If the Government do not sort that out so that advice is clear and consistent, we are all lost. Will the Minister meet my constituents and me to further discuss non-qualified leaseholder status as soon as possible?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in recognising the pain, grief and hurt caused to so many connected to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 lives were lost. I have heard the sombre comments in this debate and mean no disrespect by raising a specific matter relating to the understanding and interpretation of the legislation passed subsequently—namely, the anomaly of non-qualified leaseholder status, as it affects some constituents of mine. My constituents own a one-bedroom flat in north Somerset. It is not a penthouse or anything luxurious; it is simply a home. They purchased it in 2015 with a 999-year lease, and it was a new build, so it was theoretically covered by the NHBC 10-year guarantee. They believed it would be an ideal long-term rental property, without too many maintenance issues ahead. A neighbouring flat went up for sale in August 2024, and the buyer’s solicitor asked for an up-to-date fire risk appraisal. This prompted the management company to organise an assessment of the external walls, and the report strongly recommended cladding remediation work. My constituents would have known none of that, had it not been for the seller keeping them in the loop. The new financial protections in the Building Safety Act 2022 apply to leaseholders in buildings above 11 metres, or five storeys in height, with historical safety defects. From 28 June 2022, qualifying leaseholders in England could no longer be charged for cladding remediation, and there are legal protections for non-cladding costs. The accompanying secondary legislation came into force on 20 and 21 July 2022. The Government are clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing, even when they no longer own the building. That seems right. The Act ensures that building owners who are, or are associated with, the developer must pay for the remediation of historical defects. The courts have been granted new powers to extend liability to associated companies, ensuring that civil cases for claims against defective buildings can be brought against companies associated with a developer, preventing the use of complex corporate structures to avoid that liability. Qualifying leaseholders are protected from all cladding system remediation costs. Those whose property is calculated to be worth less than £175,000 outside London, or £325,000 in Greater London, or whose building owner has a group net worth of more than £2 million per relevant building as of 14 February 2022, are exempt from all historical safety remediation costs. The Act also includes a robust package of measures designed to ensure that those responsible finally put right the buildings they have contributed to making so dangerous, and that leaseholders are firmly protected from the unfair costs of remediation that they previous faced. No one could disagree that, on the face of it, that is fair. Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to notify any leaseholders, qualifying or non-qualifying, of the implications of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into force on 28 June 2022. However, four months ago, my constituents had no knowledge of the non-qualified leaseholder status that had been bestowed on them. Without any prior notice or consultation, my constituents’ legal rights as leaseholders had been significantly changed, backdated to 14 February 2022. That is because, as of that date, the threshold for non-qualified leaseholder status cuts in at ownership of four properties. It is very hard to find definitions of non-qualified leaseholder status on the Government website. There is plenty about qualified leaseholder status, but very little about non-qualified leaseholder status. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), has confirmed that, weirdly, under the previous Government’s legislation, a couple can own five properties, provided that they own their primary home jointly and two other properties each. However, a couple who own four properties jointly become non-qualifying leaseholders. Who on earth can think that is fair? That will discriminate against couples and families as compared with sophisticated business entities, which are probably the intended target of the legislation.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Non-qualifying leaseholder status gets slapped on a property in perpetuity long after the required safety works are completed. That status means that it is almost impossible to acquire a mortgage—solicitors advise very strongly that purchasers steer clear of such properties, which are very often flats—and the status is inherited by successive owners in perpetuity. Has the Minister considered what this status does for the housing crisis?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have constituents who live on the Somerset levels who are 90 years young. They have limited mobility and do not have mobile phones. Three months ago BT cut them off in the process of changing their landline to digital—something they did not request. They do not even have broadband, and they lost access to their emergency alarms. It took a month of pleading by their son and neighbours, and masses of calls. BT said that they were a priority as vulnerable people, but nearly a fortnight ago the landline went off again. Openreach says there is nothing wrong with their copper line, and everyone is trying to get them sorted out. All they want is a decent service on their landline and their old number back. May we have a debate about what BT’s priority register actually means, and how it might improve its service for more vulnerable residents?