Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 28 June 1986, my constituent developed symptoms of ME, and he has lived with those same symptoms for 40 years, and the NHS remains unable to offer any meaningful intervention. Those who have lived with ME for decades—some bed-bound and in darkness—feel that no one in authority notices or cares. In 2022, the then Health Secretary started work on a delivery plan for ME, which finally offered hope. This Government promised the final delivery plan at the end of March and then put it off until the end of June, which is only seven parliamentary days away. Can the Leader of the House reassure the 1.3 million people living with ME and ME-related symptoms that they will not have to wait longer than the end of June for the Government commitment to address this huge intergenerational injustice?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Anthony’s husband’s emergency and urgent care was compromised because hospital staff could not access his medical records, even though he had been treated by specialists in the same hospital. Can we have a debate on ensuring that patient records can be accessed swiftly by clinicians across hospital trusts within regions, so that patients are not endangered by the inability of software systems to communicate within the NHS?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week is National Epilepsy Week. Epilepsy is more than just seizures; it affects every area of somebody’s life. With more than 630,000 people suffering in the UK, every single MP in this House will have someone with this condition in their constituency. In the light of this being National Epilepsy Week, can we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s commitment to improving access to care and treatment for those with this condition, particularly those whose seizures do not respond to treatment?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Recycling of Tyres · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be the case. We need to tighten up the licensing regulation and how the whole process works, so that we can reduce the amount of damage that is done. According to global trade data, the UK disposes of approximately 600,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. About 350,000 tonnes of those are currently shipped to India. Of the remaining 250,000, some are exported to markets such as Turkey and Morocco, where they are used in the manufacture of cement. Some are processed in the UK to create materials to produce asphalt, which has many benefits for road safety and for the environment, and which enhances the circular economy. I will return to UK processing shortly. The fate of the 350,000 tonnes of tyres exported to India raises serious environmental and public health concerns. India, like other non-OECD countries, does not have the same stringent environmental emissions regulations that we have in the UK. However, most tyres exported to India are shipped as “green list waste” under the waste shipments regulations, which are contained in assimilated EU law. Batches tend to be sent in the form of baled whole tyres, which creates two risks. First, some tyres exported in that way are then sold for refitting in India, leading to road safety issues. Secondly, when exported as whole tyre bales, most of the tyres are sent on to rudimentary batch pyrolysis sites. In Indian batch pyrolysis, tyres are commonly burned to produce a high-sulphur heavy fuel called tyre pyrolysis oil—which is typically burned, causing direct harm to the environment—and low-grade carbon black, which is often unsuitable for reuse. The process involves enormous amounts of energy and the flaring of syngas directly into the atmosphere, without filtering or scrubbing, in conditions that are hazardous to operator health, the local population and the environment. The use of imported end-of-life tyres in India—both for refitting vehicles and in batch pyrolysis—is illegal under Indian domestic law, but there is a lack of even the most basic enforcement capacity to uphold the law. The reality of the uses of imported end-of-life tyres in India was the subject of a recent BBC documentary and, as the Minister will be aware, additionally the subject of a recent legal challenge against the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. The challenge relates to the failure of the agency and the Department to take action to prevent the illegal use of end-of-life tyres exported to India. It is important to note that this is not a historical waste crime, but one that is ongoing. Every single day, we ship around 1,000 tonnes of UK waste tyres to India. Investigators from the UK and Australia have used GPS tracking devices in several consignments of waste tyres shipped to India over the last few years, and have consistently evidenced that 100% of the tyres tracked do not reach their intended destination, with the majority being diverted to batch pyrolysis plants. What investigations has the Department undertaken to track consignments of waste tyres shipped abroad? Secondly, what conclusions has the Department reached in relation to digital waste tracking? There has been growing concern that developed countries, such as the UK, are dumping their waste problems on developing countries and have continued to export their pollution over many years. International conventions such as the Basel convention seek to better manage waste internationally, and there is domestic law to give effect to such undertakings. What is the Minister’s view on a potential producer responsibility scheme for the UK’s end of life tyres? In response to the legal challenge and the BBC documentary, the Government have announced that the Environment Agency will conduct a review into the issue. Today I seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of that review, and I have four questions at this point. Will the review be limited to an assessment of the enforcement of the existing legal provisions contained in the Basel convention and the waste shipments regulations? Will the review enable the Environment Agency to consider policy improvements? Will the review make policy recommendations to Ministers? How and when does the review intend to engage with the industry and interested parties? The Environment Act 2021 significantly strengthened the powers available to the Government to manage and track waste exports. Section 62 of the Act added to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by creating further regulatory powers to better manage and track waste exports and the countries they pass through. It also established additional powers of direction for Ministers. As I understand it, those important new powers have yet to be used. Will the Minister use her new powers under section 62 of the 2021 Act to take action to address the problems with waste tyre exports? Because end-of-life tyres are currently deemed green list waste under assimilated law through the waste shipments regulations, they are not notifiable and, as a result, are difficult to track. Will the Minister confirm that she will amend the waste shipments regulations to remove end-of-life tyres from the green list category and make such exports notifiable? Under environmental permitting regulations, there are exemptions from the need to have a permit for a number of treatments. The so-called T8 waste exemption, applying to end-of-life tyres, has long been recognised as a problem. Operators can self-certify that they handle numbers below a certain threshold and are therefore eligible for an exemption. Marking your own homework is never a good idea: often those T8-exempt operators are exactly those who trade in baled tyres to India by undercutting our responsible operators who act within the regulated regime with a permit. The Environment Agency identified the T8 exemption as a problem that made committing waste crime easier as far back as a decade ago. There were then various calls for evidence. Eventually, around three years ago, there was a consultation on removing this exemption, and the last Government confirmed that they would remove it 18 months ago. Then, nothing happened. Can the Minister confirm whether parliamentary counsel has drafted the necessary regulations and that, unlike her predecessors, she will lay the statutory instrument without further delay so that loophole can finally be closed? As we seek to identify what makes up a circular economy, we might learn lessons from approaches taken elsewhere in the world. Australia offers a powerful case study to demonstrate what can be achieved through simple legislative tweaks to end-of-life tyre exports. Four years ago, recognising the environmental impact of allowing those tyres to be exported to countries such as India for use in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, the Australian Government introduced a new condition that waste tyres had to be shredded before they could be exported. That Government also created a new system of notification and licensing for exporters. The Act that created the provisions was the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which had some similar objectives to parts of the UK Environment Act 2021. Subsequent regulations giving effect to the changes were the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Tyres) Rules 2021. First, the new Australian provisions required operators to have a waste export licence to export waste tyres at all. Secondly, they required that tyres could be exported only in a form that had been processed to shreds or crumbs of no more than 150 mm—just under 6 inches. Those could be used in modern pyrolysis to create tyre-derived fuel for uses such as sustainable aviation, or for other purposes, but only under a scheme verified by Tyre Stewardship Australia’s foreign end market verification programme, so the fate of every export was known. At a stroke, the export of whole tyres, which could previously be used illegally overseas, was ended. When shredded, tyres cannot be refitted illegally to vehicles, nor can they be used in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, since those systems require whole tyres as feedstock. In addition to taking responsibility for the country’s waste and removing an environmental hazard from countries such as India, the regulatory changes also created additional feedstock for the domestic recycling industry in Australia. That was a spur to the circular economy, creating confidence for investors to increase capacity in the domestic production of asphalt and to invest in a new generation of modern, continuous-feed pyrolysis plants that can use shredded tyres and have a more positive environmental impact. Modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants maintain steady temperatures, and achieve about 250% higher throughput for the same energy input as batch pyrolysis. The syngas is captured and reused to heat the kilns through gas turbines, which removes carbon dioxide emissions. Such plants produce higher grade carbon black, which is pelletised and reused in tyre manufacturing, supporting the circular economy. Finally, the resultant tyre pyrolysis fuel oil is refined, undergoing further processing that would meet stringent UK environmental regulations. The UK has dormant capacity to shred and process around 150,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. The reason why the plants are dormant is twofold. First, companies are unable to secure sufficient feedstock for plants because so many tyres are exported to India in baled form. Secondly, tyre collectors receive more money from India than the gate fees paid to companies who could recycle the materials here at home. The UK receives about £13 million in revenue from baled tyres sent abroad. A study by Fluid Ice and Imperial College assessed that if those end-of-life tyres were processed in the UK, even if the resultant products were exported, the revenue would be over £250 million. Several new businesses are seeking to invest in modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants in the UK but they will do so only if they have confidence in the availability of their UK feedstock. We know that the potential feedstock exists, but it is currently being exported for illegal use abroad. I have three more questions for the Minister. If we are to adopt the circular economy agenda, should we not support investors who want to recycle end-of-life tyres here? Does she agree that we should take steps to ensure that UK companies have a domestic feedstock to give them confidence? Finally, does she agree that we should take responsibility for our own waste, process it here in the UK and maximise the economic value of that resource? The Australian model for end-of-use tyres seems good and effective, and we could easily replicate its impact and effect with relatively minor changes. I recognise that I have asked 13 questions, to which I would like answers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on stopping the export of whole tyres to India, introducing better regulations and licensing, ensuring enforcement, and adopting a model parallel to that of Australia. I have provided her with a list of my questions, and I am happy to have her responses in writing, in the interest of completeness.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Recycling of Tyres · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly. The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Recycling of Tyres · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of recycling end-of-life tyres. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Government have placed the circular economy at the heart of their agenda. The circular economy taskforce has been established and is expected to report back later this year. Adopting a focus on the circular economy means changing the way we think about so-called waste. We need to see things currently perceived as waste as a resource—a resource with an economic value that can be recovered and contribute to the economic growth that this Government so seriously seek. We also need to implement policies designed to maximise the economic value from these resources.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In July 2023, my constituent Alison claimed a refund of overpaid tax that was mistakenly paid twice. In February 2024, she was told that her claim would be assessed by 20 March, in July 2024 she was told that it would be by 22 October, and in December she was told that she could not have a date but that the department had definitely received her claim 16 months previously. She has heard nothing since. Will the Chancellor agree to meet me to discuss this very vexed situation for someone who has very little money, given that this claim is nearly 21 months delayed?

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

  More

  Will the Leader of the House ask her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care for a statement explaining the rationale behind a decision last month to alter the eligibility criteria for additional compensation in the infected blood compensation scheme? The special category mechanism was replaced with the severe health condition award, which means that the group of 916 people with hepatitis C, including some of my constituents, have been singled out and are now prevented from receiving the supplementary compensation they expected, and desperately need because they are so unwell.

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

  More

  I recognise your request for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I offer my condolences and say how much I identify with the maxim “turn up at the finishing line”, having stood eight times to get here and having been successful twice. Given the countless families in my part of Somerset who have adopted or are special guardians to children and young people, many of whom are living with significant challenges and trauma stemming from their treatment in early life, the adoption and special guardianship support fund is a lifeline for essential therapeutic support. I have written to the Minister, and I understand that applications for therapy that started this financial year can carry on into the next one, but there is no news yet on the future of funding, leaving many families in limbo. Can we have a debate to enlighten us on when the Government will make an announcement on the fund, and how they propose to support adoptive families to ensure that they can access therapeutic support when it is needed?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  First, I should declare that my partner is a conservation farmer in Somerset. Having been Parliamentary Private Secretary to Vince Cable, the then Business Secretary who set up the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I recall his frustrations that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to grant the adjudicator the power she needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adjudicator will never be able to exercise meaningful control over the big supermarkets, which fund its operations through a levy, if the cost of a single investigation is greater than its annual budget? May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend to remedy this decade-old wrong?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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 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

  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

  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

  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).

• 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.

• 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?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), particularly in relation to things like rural crime, car racing, bike racing, threatening behaviour, burglary and shoplifting, and the frustration that people feel with the delays and lack of response and with things such as camera footage, which is taken every day, not being used? That frustration is, none the less, absolutely dwarfed by the frustration of the fact that the previous Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner had 28.5 full-time equivalent members of staff and a massive budget. My constituents have no idea how that is justified when what they want is police officers. Can the Minister please make sure that her review actually includes getting a grip on what is happening in PCC offices?

• 19 Nov 2024 · NHS Hospital Equipment · Hansard source

  More

  Residents in Somerset, and in North Somerset, my part of the world, recognise the £70 million that has been granted for new radiotherapy machines, as announced in the Budget, which will fund up to 30 machines. However, 70 machines will pass their sell-by date—their 10-year recommended life—by the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister agree to meet Radiotherapy UK, which wants to highlight the huge cost benefits of having a more consistent, rolling programme of machine maintenance and replacement in the NHS 10-year plan?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In August, the Ministry of Justice informed Bristol Crown court that it would have to close courtrooms and save over 400 sitting days before March 2025. Last week, the difficult decision was made to remove 40 trials listed between now and the end of March. All the witnesses and defence had been told that their trials would take place. Most have been waiting over a year—two years, in some cases. Many of the 40 cases are rape and serious sexual offences cases where the accused is on bail. The cases will not be relisted until at least October 2025. May we have a debate, so that the victims of rape and sexual abuse can understand why justice is so dreadfully delayed, and how the Government will tackle the court backlog?