UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Michael Heseltine – 1995 Speech on Regional Electricity Companies

    Michael Heseltine – 1995 Speech on Regional Electricity Companies

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the then President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons on 20 February 1995.

    I beg to move, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: ‘applauds the improvements in performance in the electricity supply industry since privatisation; welcomes the benefits which customers are receiving in terms of lower prices and improved service; supports the continuing development of competition in the electricity market and the maintenance of effective regulation where this is necessary; and notes that the Director General of Electricity Supply will continue to promote competition and protect the interests of consumers.’. In anticipation of this debate, I spent some time looking at the Opposition motion. If I may, I shall take the motion as my text. I hope that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will forgive me for sticking to the subject as expressed on the Order Paper.

    Apparently, the reason for deploring what I have not done is that the bid by Trafalgar House for Northern Electric was unpopular with the majority of Northern Electric’s shareholders who turned up at a meeting on 15 February. That is the first reason.

    The second reason is that, apparently, Trafalgar House has no experience of running a private domestic monopoly energy utility”. The third reason is that the concerns of the Director-General of Electricity Supply about his ability to regulate a regional electricity company which becomes subsumed within a larger group were ignored. The fourth point, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland referred, is the ongoing inquiries being made by the Securities and Futures Authority”. The fifth point is the expiry on 31st March 1995 of the golden share held by the Government in the 12 regional electricity companies”. Those are the reasons which the Labour party gave notice that it wished to draw to the attention of the House tonight.

    I am at something of a loss to understand the thinking behind those reasons. Perhaps we can explore just what Labour Members have in mind. It seems that, if a company has a meeting at which an undefined, unprescribed number of shareholders turn up, and if a majority of those who turn up hold a particular view, no matter how few they are, no matter the views of the others and no matter whether proxies are registered from the majority, the fact that those who turn up hold a view should be the determining factor. That is a curious constitutional innovation in the way in which British public companies should be run.

    I find it fascinating that the Labour party believes that the view of a small number of possibly wholly unrepresentative shareholders should be the basis on which the President of the Board of Trade reaches his judgment. What about all the other shareholders who did not turn up? What about the majority who may not have expressed an opinion? Supposing that they were against the view of the small minority who did turn up? Am I supposed to ignore them? Am I not supposed to listen to their views and to a range of other people’s opinions on the matter?

    The fact is—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

    Order. There are too many seated interventions. I expect Front-Bench Members in particular to set a good example.

    Dr. John Cunningham

    I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are absolutely right.

    It is no good the right hon. Gentleman coming out with this fraudulent nonsense about listening to people’s views. He did not want to listen to any views. He did not want to come to the House, and he did not want to make a statement. He did not want to answer a private notice question, and he did not want a debate. The truth is that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, he did not want to listen to views.

    Mr. Heseltine

    The right hon. Gentleman could have put all that in his motion, in which case I would have addressed it. My point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has no answer, is that nothing is so lacking in intellect or logic as the suggestion that I should take the views of a minority of shareholders as the determining factor in such a matter.

    The nearest equivalent I can think of immediately is the mass meeting of the trade union movement at which a minority of vocal militants were able to dominate the scene, which led to strike action. This is the sort of technique that the right hon. Gentleman thinks should be introduced in British public affairs. I am not prepared to have anything to do with such an argument.

    Mr. Martin O’Neill (Clackmannan)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, because I want to make a bit of progress.

    I move on to the next argument paraded, which is the absence of any experience on the bidders’ part of running a private domestic monopoly energy utility. This is said by the party that, for 40 years, has nationalised industry after industry after industry so that it can put trade unionists, civil servants and politicians in charge of the commanding heights of the British economy. This is the party that, for 15 years, has sat on the Opposition Benches.

    Labour Members have never run any serious industry in their lives, yet they now claim the right to run the whole of the British economy. I have never heard—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves.

    Mr. Heseltine

    If Labour believes that a company making a takeover bid must have had specific experience in the particular industry, it should say so. The fact is that lack of experience has never stopped Labour Members pursuing any policies of any sort in any circumstances. I cannot believe that they seriously believe that this argument should weigh with me.

    I move on to the concerns of the Director General of Electricity Supply about his ability. Here I thought that the right hon. Gentleman asked some important questions, but I was intrigued that he managed to avoid any reference to the Director General—

    Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

    Condescending.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I have made the point before that a continual running commentary from a sedentary position is not acceptable.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I come back to the point. How can the right hon. Member for Copeland pray in aid the views of the Director General of Electricity Supply, important though his views are, without reference to the Director General of Fair Trading? There was a difference between the two regulators, which I freely admit, so I had to weigh the advice that I was given from two different regulators. I chose to follow the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

    I found it absolutely fascinating, having listened to what I thought at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech were to be paeans of praise for the Director General of Electricity Supply, that he provided a catalogue of criticism on how the industry had been badly regulated, how prices—apparently—had been allowed to go up and how consumers had been ripped off. But all that is the responsibility of the Director General of Electricity Supply, the one person who, according to the motion, I am supposed to listen to, as opposed to the Director General of Fair Trading.

    Dr. John Cunningham

    Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Director General of Electricity Supply can work only within the regulations laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The Director General of Electricity Supply is as much a victim of this hopeless, hapless system as are the consumers who are paying the price.

    Mr. Heseltine

    Now we have—I have not got the words down, but we will have them all in the morning, as they will be carefully recorded—an apparently hapless system that is so unsatisfactory. So I gather that the Labour party, if it ever had the chance, would want to change it. [HON. MEMBERS: “Yes.”] That is very interesting. Would I be right in thinking that that would be the case not only for the electricity industry, but for a range of other industries? [HON. MEMBERS: “Yes.”] Yes, it would change industry after industry after industry. Where would the Labour party stop?

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

    At the utilities.

    Mr. Heseltine

    It would stop at the utilities. So am Ito understand that the National Freight Corporation, British Airways and British Steel, and all those other privatised companies, have been given a clean bill of health? Are they now safe from the predatory instincts of the Labour party? We are talking only of the utilities. That is what one might call a halfway house. All the utilities are under threat from the Labour party.

    Dr. Cunningham

    No, they are not.

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, they are not. Let us not talk about a divided party. Let us not have references to splits. Are we for clause IV or are we against clause IV? Are we dealing with clause IV(a) or clause IV(b)? Who is the great arbiter between clause IV(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or anything else’? Is it the spokesmen for the party above the Gangway, below the Gangway, on their feet, on their bottoms? Who speaks for the Labour party?

    Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) rose—

    Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) rose—

    Mr. Heseltine

    I shall give way to both hon. Members.

    Mr. Mudie

    Will the President be serious about a matter that may be funny to him, but is of extreme importance to millions of consumers? The man whom the President has to represent consumers, the regulator, advised the President not to allow Trafalgar House to take over 100 per cent. of Northern Electric, and that 25 per cent. was needed for transparency. The man responsible for protecting consumer interest put that position. Will the President take that advice, which would give the customer some protection, or will he sweep it aside?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I would seriously like to help the hon. Gentleman. The Director General of Electricity Supply has responsibilities, which he is discharging. I understand that he is in conversation with Trafalgar House. Certain assurances have been given, and those are now being discussed by the regulator. It is right and proper that that should be taking place. What the outcome of those discussions will be, I do not know, because that is something within the purview of the director general. But the right hon. Member for Copeland raised some important questions, on which I want to be as helpful as I can to the House, such as the timing of the announcement.

    It is perfectly true that, on Monday last week, I left for India. During that afternoon, I reached a judgment about the matter. It followed from that judgment, because I was interested in the assurances that Trafalgar House was offering, that officials in my Department pursued the matter, which they did.

    Of course, it was not possible to announce the outcome, because we did not know at that stage whether such assurances would be forthcoming. It is also perfectly true that it fell to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to make the statement. I would be the first to say that I felt uncomfortable, because I could see how the circumstances were developing. I shall share exactly with the House the dilemma that I faced.

    I knew that I was leaving for India. It was a very important trip, as the House would recognise. There was nothing that I could have done, or that I would have wanted to do, to avoid it, and I am sure that no one in the House would have asked me to do so. But I knew that, if I were to have made the statement, it would have had to wait until I had returned on Thursday. I did not believe that information of such sensitivity would hold between Monday and Thursday.

    Therefore, I took the initial decisions, and I instigated the consultations that were to lead to the assurances which were forthcoming, and which are now the subject of discussion. I believe that, in that way, I behaved perfectly properly.

    Dr. Cunningham

    Will the President tell the House whether those assurances are legally enforceable?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, they are not legally enforceable. But that is not the end of the matter, because the powers of the director general remain. He has powers first—as he is now doing—to discuss the matters with Trafalgar House; and, secondly, he has powers to refer Trafalgar House to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, if, in future, he should in any way feel the need to do so. So it is important to understand the balances that exist.

    Dr. Cunningham

    If the regulator determines that a reference should be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that decision, or would he overrule it?

    Mr. Heseltine

    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, once that process is under way, I am in a quasi-judicial position. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must understand that someone in my position, a position which this House has put me in, as a quasi-judicial authority, is extremely constrained, and rightly so, in their actions. I cannot prejudge matters. I have to listen to all representations, I have to take all such matters into account, and I have to be guided by the very clear legislative framework within which I operate. The judgments are often complicated, finely balanced and difficult, but I reject utterly and absolutely any suggestion that such matters are not carried out in the proper and full way.

    Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)

    Will the President comment on the assurances that have been given? Trafalgar House does not have a reputation for being a company in which there is total transparency. It is felt that cash assets are being transferred from one member of the group to another. Have we assurances that such movements will be transparent, so that Northern Electric’s consumers may be sure that they are not paying to prop up some other member of the group?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman raises essential questions, and those exact issues are now being discussed by the director general and Trafalgar House. The director general is bound to do that. It is not for me to say that I support him in doing so. It is his legal duty so to do. I understand, as does the House, that that process is now under way. I also understand the need for that transparency, and the public confidence which would flow from it, to be in place.

    Dr. Cunningham

    Those are important points, as the right hon. Gentleman says. A question now arises over the apparently independent regulator having a right to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Is the President of the Board of Trade saying that he would respect that independent right? If the regulator were to act in such a way, would the President intervene again to refuse the reference?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I have no power to stop the director general referring the matter to the MMC. I have a right to challenge the view of the MMC in the recommendations that it makes, but afterwards. That would be done in public, after public debate, and I would have to account in public to this House or wherever appropriate for any decision that I took. I would hope that, like any Secretary of State from any party, I would exercise that discretion and make those decisions in the way in which the House would expect me so to do.

    Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central)

    Will the President give the House his view on the notice presented by Offer, in terms of changing and varying the licence in relation to section 11(2) of the Electricity Act 1989? If there is an objection in 28 days, there could well be a referral to the MMC.

    Will the President give us the Government’s view about that variation of the licence which, I think, was printed in The Financial Times on 10 February, particularly in light of Northern Electric’s position on pricing when it can effectively give shareholders about £380? That point was referred to a little earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham). That was effectively price control, which could now vary the licence conditions that were printed in The Financial Times on 10 February. Will the right hon. Gentleman gives us his view about that?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman raises a complicated issue. It is not a straightforward issue, and I will not give him an answer off the cuff. However, I will ensure that he gets a proper answer, because these are highly complex and technical legal matters, and the House is entitled to be properly informed. Either my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry will reply to the hon. Gentleman in his response to the debate, or I will ensure that the Chairman of the Select Committee receives a letter setting out the matter in detail.
    We have now dealt with the substance of one of the legitimate concerns. I hope that the House feels that I have dealt with it at some length, and I do not apologise for that.

    I was surprised at the suggestion that, if the takeover is successful—I do not know whether it will be successful or not—that is somehow centralising the decision-making in London. As I understand it, Trafalgar House has made it clear that it will leave the headquarters of Northern Electric where it is presently based. It will therefore remain a provincially based company.

    I could not understand how the Labour party could argue in that way when, during the last half-century, Labour nationalised provincial company after provincial company and centralised the control of those companies in London. I do not understand why Labour should find it extraordinary that this Government have returned all those companies to provincial headquarters.

    The fact that the water and electricity companies and the gas industry now have major provincially dominated headquarters is a very important part of the Government’s process of spreading power throughout the country, as opposed to centralising it in London. It is not in the Labour party’s gift to suggest that we are trying to centralise powers by the back door—

    Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

    Will the President give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, I want to say something else—

    Mr. Rogers

    The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the truth.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

    Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Rhondda say that the Secretary of State was not telling the truth? If so, I hope that on reflection he will want to withdraw that comment.

    Mr. Rogers

    I said that the President of the Board of Trade was misleading the House. I will withdraw the remark that he is not telling—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. That will not do at all. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his comment.

    Mr. Rogers

    I never said that he was deliberately—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment.

    Mr. Rogers

    I withdraw my comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    Mr. Heseltine

    We all make such mistakes. However, if I had made that mistake, I would have admitted it more quickly than the hon. Gentleman did.

    Mr. Rogers

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has just corrected himself. He should just sit there.

    Mr. Rogers rose—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is clear that the President of the Board of Trade is not giving way.

    Mr. Heseltine

    Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not giving way.

    The most distressing feature of the debate, of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Copeland, and of many of the comments made by Labour Members is the relish with which they want to portray a major British company like Trafalgar House in the least favourable light.

    Trafalgar House is one of our leading overseas companies. It falls to my Department, and it is my privilege, often to spend a lot of time with the export managers, directors and executives of that company, travelling the world trying to obtain business. I wonder what kind of impact Labour Members feel it makes on the people whose lives are devoted entirely to trying to further British interests when they have to listen to the carping criticism that we have heard from Labour Members.

    If by any chance the takeover bid goes through—I have no knowledge as to whether it will go through or not—Trafalgar House will then be able to point to its experience of running an electricity company in the United Kingdom as it bids for major world opportunities to install, run and manage electricity facilities internationally.

    In this country, we must understand that fighting in the international marketplace today demands a scale of expertise in an ever-toughening competitive world. If, every time we try to put together a major British company to win in the world, we hear carping criticism from Labour Members who constantly talk about rip-offs, the consumers being robbed, soaring prices and any other slanderous attack they can find, they are simply undermining this country’s ability to win in the world marketplace.

    Dr. John Cunningham

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, the right hon. Gentleman has had a fair go. He knows full well that he and the rest of those on the Opposition Front Bench never miss an opportunity to undermine the excellence of British exporting companies across the world.

    Mr. Clapham

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, there is another Opposition Member trying to get in on the same act.

    We are now winning in the export markets of the world on a scale which would have seemed almost inconceivable two or three years ago. We should be immensely proud of that.

    We heard another classic canard from the Labour party. I do not want to blame the right hon. Member for Copeland for originating it. The canard was that prices have been soaring—

    Dr. Cunningham

    No.

    Mr. Heseltine

    If the right hon. Member for Copeland did not say that, I apologise straight away. I turn my attention to where the blame should lie, and that is with the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, there is another split in the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition says prices are going up, but the right hon. Member for Copeland does not believe they are.

    That is a welcome conversion—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Copeland should be quiet for a moment and decide which side of the argument he is on. I want to nail the Leader of the Opposition. When the Electricity Bill was before the House, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said: outside of the Conservative party and the Department of Energy, it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation.”— [Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 684.] What has happened? Prices to customers have fallen. They are down by 9 per cent. in real terms to domestic users in the past two years. Industrial consumers have also seen falls in real terms. That record compares with a real increase of 5 per cent. in industrial prices, and a 22 per cent. increase in domestic prices under the last Labour Government.

    The right hon. Member for Copeland cannot deny that he said that the quality of service has not improved. However, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in the number of domestic customers who have been disconnected. Customer complaints to the regulator are falling. The right hon. Member for Copeland then said that investment was not taking off. However, the electricity industry has increased investment by more than 10 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.

    Productivity is also rising. It is perfectly true that the regional electricity companies have reduced staff in comparison to pre-privatisation levels. They have introduced more flexible work patterns and pay bargaining. However, is Labour arguing that we must continue to employ people in companies that could achieve the same results with fewer people? Is that what Labour Members are saying? If they are saying that, how would they achieve productivity gains to pay the real increases in wages, upon which real increasing prosperity depends?

    Whenever there were job losses in any industry, Opposition Members never said, “Britain is becoming more competitive.” They tried to pretend that we could freeze—fossilise—our industrial and manufacturing capability in the chaotic world that we inherited from them 15 years ago. That simply is not an option. It was not an option then—that is why they lost power—and it is not an option now. We are winning so much extra export market because we have turned the tide of British productivity.

    In this debate, as in all others, Opposition Members cannot come to terms with the fact that it is only within the private sector that we will make the gains upon which the increasing wealth of this country depends. Opposition Members talk about shareholders doing well. I take credit for that and pride in it, because I know that shareholders are the pensioners, the people with the insurance companies, the people who are the savers, and the workers in industry who bought shares in their companies. One should rejoice in that, not condemn it left, right and centre whenever one has an opportunity.

    The Labour party cannot come to terms with the fact that, 100 years ago, some lunatic dreamed up the idea called “socialism”. It is bust, it is finished, and that is why Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches, and will stay there.

  • Robert Courts – 2022 Statement on the Aviation Industry Disruption

    Robert Courts – 2022 Statement on the Aviation Industry Disruption

    The statement made by Robert Courts, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    Over the half-term jubilee weekend, we saw disruption at UK airports with some passengers facing long queues and cancellations largely due to staff shortages at airports, airlines and ground handlers. These experiences, for too many consumers recently, have been unacceptable.

    The Secretary of State and I have made it clear to the sector that they need to operate services that are offered for sale properly and according to schedule, or provide swift, appropriate compensation.

    The aviation industry is privately owned, operated, and run. It is therefore responsible for making sure that it has enough staff to meet demand and to operate the flights offered for sale. It is important that the sector is a competitive, attractive market for workers. The Government have called upon the sector’s leadership to offer better packages and build a resilient workforce to meet demand.

    Since earlier this year, the Government have worked across a number of different areas to help the industry alleviate the issues they have been facing. We are clear that consumers should not lose out. The Government are taking steps to boost consumer rights, including recently consulting on using our Brexit freedoms to enhance consumer protections. We have committed to publishing an aviation passenger charter to ensure consumers can access information about their rights all in one place.

    We have sought ways to ease the burden of background checks carried out by industry. A statutory instrument was laid on 29 April to provide greater flexibility, enabling Ministers to take the decision to allow certain training to be undertaken while background checks were completed. Ministers have also agreed that HMRC employment history letters can be used as a suitable form of reference check—with safeguards in place. These temporary alleviations have helped to speed up recruitment times.

    In partnership with the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government have written to the industry setting out five specific expectations we have for the aviation sector this summer:

    Summer schedules must be reviewed to make sure they are deliverable.

    Everyone from ground handlers to air traffic control must collaborate on resilience planning.

    Passengers must be promptly informed of their consumer rights when things go wrong, and—if necessary—compensated in good time.

    Disabled and less mobile passengers must be given assistance they require.

    Safety and security must never be compromised.

    I am chairing a strategic risk group with CEOs of the aviation sector, which will meet on a weekly basis going into the summer. This group will identify possible interventions to further improve the resilience of the sector, and will be used to hold the sector to account for delivering its schedules. Department for Transport Ministers and senior officials will continue to monitor the situation closely to make sure consumers do not lose out from any further disruption.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Private Rented Sector White Paper

    Eddie Hughes – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Private Rented Sector White Paper

    The statement made by Eddie Hughes, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    The Government have today published their White Paper “A fairer private rented sector”.

    The private rented sector currently offers the most expensive, least secure, and lowest-quality housing to a growing number of vulnerable people, including 1.3 million households with children and 382,000 households over 65. This is driving unacceptable outcomes and is holding back some of the most deprived parts of the country.

    Many renters face a lack of security as they can be evicted without a reason at just two months’ notice (so called “no fault” section 21 evictions, under the Housing Act 1988). This means many tenants do not challenge their landlords or agents on standards. Renters also feel that they cannot put down roots in their local areas, which does nothing for community cohesion.

    The system does not work for good landlords either, the majority of whom do right by their tenants and offer them a positive, secure living situation. They lack the ability to effectively tackle antisocial behaviour or deliberate and persistent non-payment of rent. Most landlords are trying to do the right thing but simply cannot access the information they need. Further, inadequate enforcement is allowing criminal landlords to thrive, which harms tenants and reputable landlords.

    The A Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper builds on the vision in the Levelling Up White Paper and sets out our plans to fundamentally reform the private rented sector and level up housing quality in this country. It sets the strategic direction for the PRS for the first time in a generation and demonstrates our ambition and determination to give private renters a better deal.

    The White Paper sets out a 12-point action plan of how we will deliver a fairer, more secure, higher quality private rented sector:

    Safe and decent homes

    The PRS has some of the worst housing of all tenures. We will improve this by:

    Delivering on our levelling up housing mission and require privately rented homes to meet the decent homes standard for the first time. This will give renters safer and better value homes and the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities.

    Accelerating quality improvements in the areas that need it most. We will run pilot schemes with a selection of local authorities to explore different ways of enforcing standards and work with landlords to speed up adoption of the decent homes standard.

    Increased security and stability

    For too long tenants have felt powerless and unable to challenge poor practice. We want to change this. We will rebalance the law to deliver a radically fairer deal for renters, while making sure that landlords can regain possession of their property when needed. We will achieve this by:

    Delivering on our manifesto commitment to abolish section 21 “no fault” evictions and introducing a simpler, more secure tenancy structure. A tenancy will only end if the tenant ends it or if the landlord has a valid ground for possession, empowering tenants to challenge poor practice and reducing costs associated with unexpected moves.

    Reforming grounds for possession to make sure that landlords have effective means to gain possession of their properties when necessary. We will expedite landlords’ ability to evict those who disrupt neighbourhoods through antisocial behaviour and introduce new grounds for persistent arrears and sale of the property.

    Improved dispute resolution

    Tenants and landlords need structures in place that allow them to resolve disputes efficiently and fairly. We will deliver on this by:

    Only allowing increases to rent once per year, ending the use of rent review clauses, and furthering tenants’ ability to challenge excessive rent increases through the first-tier tribunal to support people to manage their costs and to remain in their homes.

    Strengthening tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account and introduce a new single ombudsman that all private landlords must join. This will provide fair, impartial, and binding resolution to many issues and be quicker, cheaper and less adversarial than the court system.

    Working with the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to target the areas where there are unacceptable delays in court proceedings. We will also strengthen mediation and alternative dispute resolution to enable landlords and tenants to work together to reduce the risk of issues escalating.

    Better compliance and robust enforcement

    Landlords, tenants, and local authorities need access to the right information and, for local authorities, the right powers, to crack down on poor practice. We will deliver this by:

    Introducing a new property portal to make sure that tenants, landlords and local authorities have the information they need. The portal will provide a single “front door” for landlords to understand their responsibilities, tenants will be able to access information about their landlord’s compliance and local councils will have access to better data to crack down on criminal landlords. We also intend to incorporate some of the functionality of the database of rogue landlords, mandating the entry of all eligible landlord offences and making them publicly visible (subject to consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office).

    Strengthening local councils’ enforcement powers and ability to crack down on criminal landlords by seeking to increase investigative powers and strengthening the fine regime for serious offences. We are also exploring a requirement for local councils to report on their housing enforcement activity and want to recognise those local councils that are doing a good job.

    A positive renting experience

    We want to improve the experience of everyone who rents in the private rented sector and will:

    Legislate to make it illegal for landlords or agents to have blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits and explore if action is needed for other vulnerable groups, such as prison leavers. We will also improve support to landlords who let to people on benefits, which will reduce barriers for those on the lowest incomes.

    Give tenants the right to request a pet in their property, which the landlord must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse. We will also amend the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so landlords can request that their tenants buy pet insurance.

    Work with industry experts to monitor the development of innovative market-led solutions to passport deposits. This will help tenants who struggle to raise a second deposit to move around the PRS more easily and support tenants to save for ownership.

    We have already taken significant action to improve private renting, including significantly reducing the proportion of non-decent private rented homes, banning tenancy fees for tenancy agreements signed after 1 June 2019, and introducing pandemic emergency measures to ban bailiff evictions—these reforms will finish the job that we started in 201—and deliver a fairer private rented sector.

    We have also today published the Government response to the 2019 consultation “A new deal for renting” that sets out how the new tenancy regime will work once section 21 evictions are abolished, the Government response to the “Considering the case for a Housing court: call for evidence”, and the Government response to the 2019 “Tenancy deposit reform: a call for evidence”. We will be depositing copies of these documents in the Library of the House.

    We will deliver on these reforms in the forthcoming parliamentary Session, which will drive real change and make the private rented sector fit for the 21st century. These reforms will apply to England only.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2022 Statement on Rape Cases

    Victoria Atkins – 2022 Statement on Rape Cases

    The statement made by Victoria Atkins, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    Today the Government are announcing additional funding for victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse, publishing a progress report on the implementation of the rape review action plan and the next iteration of the criminal justice system (CJS) delivery data dashboard. These form an important part of our commitment to transform the criminal justice system response to rape, boost transparency and ensure victims get the support they deserve.

    The Government are announcing:

    An additional £6.6 million p.a. boost on a multi-year basis throughout this spending review period, for services supporting victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. £6 million is being provided directly to police and crime commissioners to increase community-based support in local areas and £0.6 million for training to support the recruitment of the 300 additional independent sexual violence advisors and independent domestic violence advisors over the next three years.

    The publication of a progress report one year on from the publication of the end-to-end rape review action plan. This delivers on commitments in the rape review to be transparent and accountable to the public on how we are progressing work to improve the cross-system response to rape.

    The third iteration of the criminal justice system delivery data dashboard, previously named the CJS scorecard. This publication includes additional Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) metrics and population adjustments.

    Together, these products will contribute to this Government’s commitment to restore faith in the criminal justice system, pursue justice for victims, and build back safer.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on the UK-EEA EFTA Separation Agreement

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on the UK-EEA EFTA Separation Agreement

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for Europe and North America, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    The UK-EEA EFTA separation agreement, which was agreed with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, and signed on 28 January 2020, covers citizens’ rights and separation provisions. The separation agreement established a Joint Committee whose primary role is to supervise and facilitate the implementation and application of the separation agreement, with the power to make decisions. The Joint Committee has a rotating chair which is currently held by Liechtenstein.

    The third meeting of the Joint Committee took place on 8 June 2022 in London, and focused on citizens’ rights. Each of the parties to the agreement gave an update on the implementation and application of the citizens’ rights provisions, and reiterated their commitment to ensuring continued correct implementation and application. The Independent Monitoring Authority and the EFTA Surveillance Authority also attended to give updates on their monitoring and complaints handling functions as required by the separation agreement, and to discuss their annual reports for 2021.

    The Joint Committee adopted a decision to amend part I of annex I of the separation agreement to reflect decisions taken by the EU’s Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. These decisions relate to the interpretation of the relevant social security co-ordination provisions, including on data processing and data exchange. They do not impact the rights provided for in the separation agreement. Copies of this decision have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

    The Joint Committee will meet at least annually, with Norway holding the next rotating chair. The next meeting is expected to take place in 2023. I commit to continuing to update Parliament following future meetings of the Joint Committee where decisions are taken.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on UK Air Defence Support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on UK Air Defence Support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    After the attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) oil production facilities on 14 September 2019, the UK has worked with Saudi Arabia and international partners to help defend critical infrastructure and support the territorial integrity of the kingdom. The UK deployed two Giraffe radars in February 2020 to help mitigate the continued aerial threats that the kingdom has faced. The deployment was purely defensive in nature. It was necessary to repatriate these radars in December 2021, but the threat to Saudi Arabia has not abated and the requirement to support KSA remains.

    The Ministry of Defence has conducted a phased follow-on deployment of air defence equipment to Saudi Arabia. The deployment comprises a small number of high-velocity missile (self-propelled) systems and associated personnel. As with the Giraffe radars, this is a purely defensive capability, and is being deployed solely to support KSA efforts to defend itself from persistent aerial threats to its territorial integrity.

  • Kwasi Kwarteng – 2022 Statement on the National Security and Investment Annual Report 2022

    Kwasi Kwarteng – 2022 Statement on the National Security and Investment Annual Report 2022

    The statement made by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I am today laying before Parliament the first annual report under the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I will place copies in the Libraries of both Houses and the report will also be published on gov.uk.

    The National Security and Investment Act 2021 protects the UK from risks to national security arising from acquisitions of control of entities and assets. In doing so it also maintains the UK’s status as an attractive place to invest. The system is predictable, enabling businesses involved in acquisitions to have certainty when engaging with it and it provides clear and efficient clearance processes for relevant acquisitions to be assessed, for remedies to be applied if necessary.

    The new National Security and Investment (NSI) system commenced on 4 January 2022. The Act requires me to report on the system each year after 31 March.

    I am pleased to lay the first NSI Act annual report before the House today. This fulfils my requirements under section 61 of the Act for this year.

    The report shows that the system has started strongly. As of 31 March, the Investment Security Unit received 222 notifications and accepted 201 of them. To that date I had issued 17 call-in notices. Of those notifications that were cleared without any further action, all were cleared within the statutory 30 working-day limit. I had not imposed any final orders (the means by which I can impose conditions on, block, or unwind an acquisition) by 31 March in relation to the 17 call-in notices issued, though the full national security assessment process was still ongoing for many of them.

    Because the data covers only the first three months of the Act’s operation, we cannot draw long-term conclusions or observe patterns with accuracy. However, the system is operating well and, extrapolating out, volumes at each stage are within the estimates provided by the impact assessment.

    We brought forward the reforms in the NSI Act to protect national security while keeping the UK open to investment. The early data is encouraging and shows that these objectives can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Those who wish us harm should be in no doubt that we will always act to protect the UK’s national security interests. Equally, the Government’s ambition is for the UK to be the best place in the world to invest and to start and grow a business, so I hope that business leaders and investors will take confidence from this report.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech at WTO Ministerial Conference

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech at WTO Ministerial Conference

    The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 17 June 2022.

    I want to thank everyone who has worked around the clock at the WTO Ministerial Conference over the past week. Our hard work was not in vain. As the Director General said in her closing speech, we have successfully shown that the WTO is capable of responding to some of the biggest challenges of our time.

    As the UK’s first Ministerial Conference as an independent member, I am incredibly proud of the active and principled role that we played. We approached negotiations with a constructive spirit, and showed flexibility to get things done.

    I was pleased to convene fellow Ministers to discuss trade measures in support of Ukraine. Against the backdrop of Putin’s illegal war, it was important to demonstrate the breadth of support for our heroic Ukrainian friends. Whilst Russia may have had a presence at MC12, I am clear that it does not represent a normalisation of trade relations between the UK and Russia.

    Global food insecurity was already an issue before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So it was right that the WTO membership gave this issue the attention it deserves by signing a new political declaration, which recognises the important role that trade can plan in improving global food security.

    There was apprehension going into MC12 about whether the membership could put aside their differences and unite behind common goals. I am proud that we proved the naysayers wrong. The reality is that this Ministerial Conference has produced positive outcomes.

    We know that businesses, in both developed and developing countries, wanted us to guarantee tariff-free digital trade. I am happy to say that we delivered for them. Digital trade is what allows a start-up in Malawi access to the same global opportunity as an MSME in Manchester, or indeed a multi-national in California. In the digital age, the E-Commerce Moratorium provides certainty and lowers costs for global supply chains. And, in time, we want to see this Moratorium made permanent.

    Coming into discussions about the WTO’s response to the pandemic, we were clear that the solution to the access of Covid-critical goods lay beyond Intellectual Property, such as principles in applying export restrictions, increased transparency supporting trade facilitation and tariff reduction. While we pressed for the WTO Declaration to go further, we welcome the fact that members found common ground and committed to keep working to improve our preparedness for future pandemics.

    The UK is a long-standing champion of equitable access to vaccines. However, we could only accept an outcome on TRIPS that was operable and did not undermine the existing Intellectual Property framework. That is why the UK fought hard to clarify the exact intent and scope behind the TRIPS Decision. After intense negotiations, we are satisfied the final text is sufficiently workable.

    Let me be clear: this is not about waiving IP rights. This decision should make it easier for developing countries to export the vaccines they produce within existing flexibilities.

    The Fisheries Agreement does not go as far as many members wanted (the UK included). But it does go some way to delivering what our ocean’s need and all those that are dependent on them. We made a firm commitment to continue negotiations so that we can support the recovery of global fish stocks.

    The agreements we reached this week may not be perfect, but they do provide a platform on which we can continue to build. No one has worked harder than the Director-General, who has moved mountains in her efforts to bring about consensus. I congratulate her, the WTO Secretariat, Committee Chairs and Facilitators for their tireless efforts.

    The UK still believes in the centrality of the WTO to the global trading system. The outcomes achieved in Geneva this week show that we are not alone in this belief. Let’s not wait until MC13 to keep making progress.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Press Conference on His Second Visit to Kyiv

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Press Conference on His Second Visit to Kyiv

    The press conference with Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 17 June 2022.

    Thank you for having me. It’s great to be back here again in Kyiv and to see you, but also to see how life is coming back to the streets, to the cafes, to the restaurants.

    It’s much livelier than it was just a few weeks ago when you and I went on our impromptu walk about, Volodymyr, and that’s a very positive thing. It’s good to see visitors, let me put it this way from other European countries, coming to Kyiv.

    But we’ve got to face the fact that only a couple of hours away a barbaric assault continues on entirely innocent people.

    Towns and villages are being reduced to rubble.

    And as you rightly say, Volodymyr, we continue to see the deliberate targeting of civilians – what is unquestionably a war crime.

    And in a hideous echo of the past, the illegal deportation of people that the Russian forces believe are insufficiently sympathetic to Putin’s aggression and in these circumstances, we can only once again salute the heroism of the Ukrainian forces, the bravery of your armed forces.

    In these circumstances, Volodymyr, I completely understand why you and your people can make no compromise with Putin.

    Because if Ukraine is suffering, if Ukrainian troops are suffering, then I have to tell you that all the evidence is that Putin’s troops are under acute pressure themselves and they are taking heavy casualties.

    Their expenditure of munitions, of shells and other weaponry is colossal.

    And after our 114 days of attack on Ukraine, they have still not achieved the objectives they set out for the first week.

    So Volodymyr, we are here once again, to underline that we are with you to give you the strategic endurance that you will need and we are going to continue to help intensify the sanctions on Putin’s regime.

    We’re going to do everything we can to continue to strengthen the diplomatic coalition around the world for Ukraine.

    And I completely understand and sympathise with the need for continued financial support for Ukraine.

    We’re going to work together to liberate the grain, as you rightly say that he’s being held hostage right now by Putin, depriving people around the world of the food that they need.

    And of course, we will continue, as we have from the beginning, to provide the military equipment, the training that may be necessary to go with that with that new equipment, so that you – the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian Armed Forces, will be able to do what I believe Ukrainians yearn to do and that is to expel the aggressor from Ukraine.

    And that will be the moment for talks about the future.

    And it will be in that context of a free Ukraine that we and other countries will be making the security commitments and guarantees that we’ve we discussed so often.

    And we will work together with you and with our partners to rebuild your wonderful country for the benefit of Ukrainians and I might say, for the benefit of the whole of the global economy.

    Thank you for having me to Kyiv again. Always wonderful to be here. Slava Ukraini.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    Eddie Hughes – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    The speech made by Eddie Hughes, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for the opportunity to debate this important issue. It is a matter of considerable interest to many hon. Members across all parties and I am grateful to have heard some of their contributions today. Although short-term and holiday letting to paying guests is not a new phenomenon, it is clear that there has been rapid and significant growth in the market over the last decade or so, driven by the proliferation and popularity of online platforms such as Airbnb—other platforms are available.

    Many hon. Members will have seen first hand and heard from their constituents as to the challenges and, on occasion, the benefits that that growth has brought to communities, the tourism industry and the wider housing market. Today’s debate has been an invaluable opportunity to hear about the picture in different areas of England, and indeed Scotland.

    We can all agree that the sharing economy makes an important contribution to the wider economy. Some estimates suggest that short-term let hosts and guests contribute more than £3 billion to the UK economy. The sharing economy also benefits consumers, who enjoy a greater choice of accommodation at a range of competitive prices. Obviously, for households who have unoccupied or underused accommodation, it provides an additional source of income. Of course, an increased number of tourists in any area will have a positive knock-on effect for local businesses, particularly tourism and hospitality businesses, which will see more footfall and more spending.

    Despite those myriad benefits, there are major drawbacks for certain local areas as hon. Members have highlighted. It is a particular issue in hotspots such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster; in York, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted; in rural areas, such as the south-west and the Lake District; and in Edinburgh, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) highlighted.

    It has been argued that the growing number of short-term lets is affecting housing supply. Some people are rightly concerned that landlords may be prioritising short-term letting activity instead of long-term tenancy arrangements. Today, the Government published a White Paper for private renters, “A Fairer Private Rented Sector”, which sets out our plan to fundamentally reform the sector and to level up housing quality in this country. Our hope is that that package of measures will help good landlords in the market.

    Another concern about short-term and holiday lets is the reports of noisy neighbours and the antisocial or nuisance behaviour of guests. Indeed, the Greater London Authority has reported that in the five London boroughs with the most Airbnb listings, there have been complaints related to short-term letting activity. Westminster reported 194 complaints of noise, waste and antisocial behaviour over just one year. Local authorities have a range of powers to enable them to tackle such issues, including being able to serve abatement notices if they believe a statutory nuisance is taking place; powers to tackle noise under the Noise Act 1996; and powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to act on nuisances such as litter and garden rubbish, as well as noise.

    As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, a further issue in London is that some short-term lets are regularly in breach of the 90-day rule that we have heard about. She has done a valiant job of lobbying Airbnb to take an industry lead and has encouraged it to accept a registration scheme, to provide local authorities with full disclosure of properties in their area, and to enforce that rule.

    For those unfamiliar, if London properties that are liable for council tax are let out for more than 90 nights a year, that represents a material change of use for which planning permission is required. That rule was introduced in the Deregulation Act 2015 and gave Londoners similar freedoms to residents in the rest of England, where there are no restrictions. Prior to 2015, Londoners could not let out their homes on a short-term basis. The rule means that Londoners can rent out their property when, for example, they are away on holiday. In practice, however, as we have heard, local authorities say that they are struggling to enforce when there are breaches because of a lack of data on where the lets are located and who runs them.

    This brings me on to what steps the Government are taking to improve how the short-term lettings sector operates. There is currently no definitive source of data on short-term lets, and much existing evidence is largely anecdotal. Much of the publicly available data also predates covid-19, so we really need to get an up-to-date picture of how the market is operating today. In the very near future, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport therefore intends to publish a call for evidence to help us do precisely that. After this debate, when I see the relevant Minister in the Tea Room, I will be nudging him in the right direction. Getting an up-to-date picture of how the market is operating will be vital for developing appropriate ways forward that not only preserve the benefits of short-term letting but address the challenges. When the call for evidence is published, the Government will welcome responses from those who have spoken today so that, when working out what the Government should do next, we can take advantage of the valuable knowledge imparted today.

    Rachael Maskell

    It is my understanding that DCMS will be looking at a registration scheme, not a licensing scheme, and there is a world of difference between them. Given the Minister’s departmental interest in this issue, could there be a roundtable to discuss the impact of this and the difference between licensing and registration? Would he advocate or facilitate such a roundtable with, for instance, the Members here and Members with a particular interest in this issue?

    Eddie Hughes

    I do not know if I can facilitate that, but, trust me, I am definitely going to advocate it. I think the idea of a roundtable with the relevant Ministers from my Department and DCMS would be an excellent idea. That would give colleagues from across the House the opportunity to engage, and it would be delightful if the hon. Member for Edinburgh East could contribute to it as well. I fully appreciate the jurisdictional element, but it would still be good to have his input.

    Another prominent call is for changes to the planning system. I recognise that the creation of a new class for short-term lets appears an attractive way to limit them. However, this would also create challenges about how a new use class would be applied and effectively enforced. That said, I know that the Scottish Government have made changes to their planning system and the Welsh Government are consulting on making changes to reflect the new world created by short-term holiday lets. I would remind Members participating in this debate that the spread of second homes and holiday lets across England is not a consistent picture and clearly varies region by region. Nevertheless, we are speaking with the Welsh Government about the progress and implementation of their planning proposals, and I can assure Members that we will keep this area under review.

    I want to mention briefly the action the Government are taking through the tax system. We have strengthened the criteria under which second properties are considered as commercial holiday lets and assessed for business rates, rather than council tax. From 1 April next year, holiday lets will be required to demonstrate that the property has actually been let out for at least 70 days in the preceding year. This will ensure that only genuine holiday businesses that bring tourists to destinations across the country and contribute to the economy can access the rate relief for small businesses.

    Today’s debate has also touched on the impact that short-term lets have on the housing market, so I want to mention what steps the Government are taking to address the challenges in our housing market. They include making the dream of home ownership a reality, as well as delivering a significant number of new affordable homes, so that everyone can access a safe and secure home that is affordable to them. We are investing £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, which, if economic conditions allow, will provide up to 180,000 homes across the country.

    We are also adopting new measures to support people getting on to the housing ladder. Since 2010, over 758,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through Government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and the right to buy. On top of this, our First Homes programme offers homes to local first-time buyers with a discount of at least 30% on the full market value. Local authorities also have the discretion to apply additional eligibility criteria to First Homes through the plan-making process, including deeper discounts of 40% or 50% where buyers can demonstrate a local connection in order to prioritise local residents and key workers.

    I want to close by once again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for bringing this important debate to the House. The Government are acutely aware of the issue, and I can assure colleagues that we are paying close attention to it and giving it careful consideration both in my Department and in DCMS. As highlighted at the outset, we recognise that the sharing economy can be beneficial for local communities and businesses, but we are equally clear that those benefits cannot come at the expense of our ultimate priority of ensuring that everyone has access to a decent, safe and affordable home.