I chaired the debate at Westminster Hall on the 25 April 2024. This was an interesting debate more so because I have received a lot of emails from constituents. The Government's position was set out during the debate:

The UK was one of the very first to sign the agreement, on 20 September 2023, the day it opened for signature at the UN—we were at the front of the queue. We want to ensure that it comes into force as quickly as possible. Globally, that will take several steps to achieve: 60 states or regional economic integration organisations must become party to the agreement, and 120 days must pass after deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification before it can enter into force. The first conference of the parties will then be able to meet within a year of that date. The agreement has gained 89 signatures and four ratifications so far. Realistically, we expect that the first conference should be able to meet in late 2026. We intend for the UK to be there as a party to the agreement, and we are making timely progress towards that end, as well as, importantly, helping others to do similarly.

 

 

Although I welcomed the introduction of this long overdue Bill, I remain of the opinion that it is not fit for purpose. It contains numerous defects, deficiencies, omissions and loopholes that would allow the minority of disreputable landlords to exploit tenants and jeopardise their security of tenure. It still needs strengthening for the benefit of renters.  Amendments 14 and 255 were tabled to the Renters (Reform) Bill at Report Stage. They sought to extend the period before a tenant could face eviction should a landlord choose to sell or move back in, and to give tenants more time to move out in such circumstances. However, they were not voted upon and therefore will not form part of the Bill going forward. I was opposed to the Government’s New Clause 15, as in my opinion, there is no compelling rationale for it. Unfortunately, it passed with the support of Government MPs. The amendment stops tenants giving notice to quit a tenancy within the first six months, meaning that they will remain liable for six months’ rent in all circumstances.

The Government has said it will consider exemptions to the fixed initial letting period in serious circumstances, such as domestic abuse, death of a tenant or serious hazard in the property. However, I am concerned that nothing in the new clause as drafted, guarantees that any such exemptions will ultimately be made, or what they would look like in practice. More widely, I want to see measures to fix the housing market, delivering the biggest boost to affordable, social, and council housing for a generation. This includes restoring local housing targets and reconsidering planning rules to build 1.5 million homes within a five-year period. We need to fundamentally reform the private rented sector to tilt the balance of power towards renters and make renting fairer, more secure, and more affordable.

New Clause NC15 accordingly read a second time. New Clause NC15 added to the Bill. - I voted against and the result was: Ayes: 283 Noes: 143 

New Clause NC30 the Clause be read a second time, accordingly read a second time, added to the Bill - I voted against and the results was: Ayes: 287 Noes: 144

Amendment 28 be made, Question put, That the Amendment be made. I voted for and the results was: Ayes: 158 Noes: 282

Renters (Reform) Bill: Third Reading

Bill was read the third time and passed.

On Tuesday 23 April 2024 I presented a petition on behalf of my constituents as part of the campaign to ensure that compensation is paid to the victims of infected blood  immediately. I said:
This petition is from the residents of Walsall South. The petitioners note that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress. Some of them have found it very difficult to access their medical records over a long time, and today’s urgent question does not leave them any clearer about when they will get compensation.  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
There are signatories to the petition who have been directly affected by the failure to implement the recommendations. the full text is as follows: 
The Petition Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.

The Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales held a briefing for Parliamentarians with Fr Gabriel Romanelli Catholic priest of the Holy Family Parish in Gaza on Tuesday 23 April 2024.  Fr Gabriel said he has been in the Holy Land since 1995. His church is the only catholic Church. He lives in Gaza and the border was closed and remains closed. He told us how the Holy Family passed through Gaza and the Holy Land that is why it is called the Holy Family Church. There have always been Christians there who are the descendants of the first disciples of Jesus Christ. 

Fr Gabriel said there is only electricity for 4 hours. Before 2003 there were 500 trucks. The majority of the population are civilians. They are not members of any organisation. He said an 85 year old music teacher was shot. They have lost 25% of the community. They cannot leave the area without Israeli permission. Food is expensive and there is no electricity. Fr Gabriel said he thinks the figure of the number dead is higher than 30,000. The question is how to get the injured out of Gaza for surgery. We agreed we would explore ways of keeping in touch and raising these issues and supporting the Catholic and Christian community in Gaza. Fr Gabriel had our full support and good wishes.    

The Football Governance Bill had its second reading on Tuesday 23 April 2024. This is a landmark bill which establishes a regulator which will ensure clubs are regulated with a light touch but with sanctions if necessary. There will be a fit and proper test for Directors and the regulator will be able to intervene on behalf of the fans for example if the name , colours are changed and the Stadium is moved. However, the Bill does not mandate or change the parachute payments which are paid to clubs as they go down from the Premier League to the Championship and back up. 

The Bill has cross-party support. I made 3 interventions in the debate. 

I asked the Secretary of State: 

"I am not going to mention my local football clubs—oh, all right, I will: Walsall football club and Darlaston Town 1874 FC, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary. The shape of the Bill at the minute is due to the Minister sitting next to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has engaged with all Members. I pay tribute to him for including all of us. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is looking at the Bill in a party political way, because the Government have been in power for the last 14 years. Let us all pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Pudsey, who has done a fantastic job."

"Do the regulators have sufficient power to intervene if some of the owners are servicing debts in other areas of their company?"

I asked the Shadow Secretary of State: 

"My hon. Friend mentioned the fan-led review. Does she agree with me that the women’s game, which is out of scope of the Bill, is growing exponentially, and that there is scope for the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), in a new role, to look at the women’s game and see whether we could have some regulation there?"