Carla Denyer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is a really simple one. Do you think that rents in the private rented sector are currently fair and affordable? Theresa Wallace: It is a good question. I think that the demand is what has the effect on rents. I really believe that if we had those million social homes—I know we cannot get them overnight, but we should have a long-term strategy working towards that—you would have no pressures on rents because you would not have this imbalance in the demand and the supply, so rents would not be where they are. Ben Beadle: Yes is the straightforward answer, for me. The rents that we have seen increased by 8.4% in the year to September. That is high by any measure, and I think, as Theresa says, it is entirely down to a lack of social housing and a lack of new stock coming to the market. It cannot be normal that you get 21 people applying to rent a property. I know the Bill deals with advance rent. As a landlord, I never ask for advance rent, but I get people saying, “I will give you 12 months’ rent up front,” before they have even seen the property. I think this mad market is not normal, and obviously it will not be resolved by this Bill. I say that because—though there are a lot of really good things in it, such as the database and the ombudsman, which we are very supportive of—it tinkers around the edges of the fundamental issue here, which is supply. I know the Government will address social housing and right to buy, and all those things, and they are absolutely right to do so. At the same time, we do need a vibrant private rented sector. We need that vibrant private rented sector now while we work out what to do with social homes, because there is a massive lead time. What I see at the moment is everybody harking back to the wonders of the ’70s, of social housing and council housing, and looking at that as a really great thing, but we see horrible stories of local authority properties in serious disrepair. We have lower satisfaction in the social sector than we do in the private rented sector. At the same time, we are focusing on making life really difficult for responsible landlords who have good quality accommodation to bring to market. We do not want to dissuade those people from bringing it to the market; we want to encourage them. I think the sequence of this needs to be that the Bill must deliver for responsible landlords and renters, and give them security, but it must also address some fundamental issues about supply.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q When I met your Citizens Advice colleagues in my constituency, they said, “We can give all the advice that you like, but ultimately, the problem is that money out is more than money in.” I have that ringing in my ears, and that inspires this question. We all know that rents have been increasing out of proportion to incomes over the last few years, creating this growing gap where one or, at this rate, two generations of people risk never being able to afford to get out of the private rented sector. I am really worried about that, especially as that group ages. Do you think the Bill does enough to address the issue of affordability of rents and the long-term and growing problem of those generations of people, moving into old age, permanently trapped in the private rented sector? Tom MacInnes: We will not go back to the bit about rent rises, but we will talk about some other aspects. The thing that concerns us is asking for enormous amounts of rent up front, so what we want is to have that limited to a month’s rent up front. There are also other issues around guarantors and asking for guarantors, in the next stage along the process. We think that has discriminatory consequences against people who actually can afford it, but cannot point to the evidence of it—people who could afford the rent but do not have anyone in their social circle, if you like, who could back them up for a year or whatever. We would like the instances of relying on guarantors to be reduced. If the issue of perceived affordability changes, the choice for those groups grows; we are looking for that kind of support. We welcome the end of “No DSS, no benefits”, but we are worried about that coming in in other ways, such as someone not having rich enough friends to back them up. We would like to see that being addressed.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a member of the Acorn community union, which is giving evidence today.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As far as I am concerned, you can talk about rent controls. Tarun Bhakta: We really agree with those points about rent in advance and guarantors, which are particular priorities for Shelter. Particularly through our legal services, we have been one of the foremost organisations supporting tenants to challenge DSS or housing benefit discrimination. We see how slippery that discrimination is. It is very difficult for tenants to understand whether they have experienced it. To add to what Tom said, we have some evidence that rent-in-advance requests are disproportionately made to housing benefit claimants, but that also applies to older renters, as do guarantor requests. Rent-in-advance and guarantor requests often come together or are linked. A lot of older renters do not have someone in their support network who is willing or able to offer to be a guarantor. The effect of these requests that landlords introduce is to lock people out of the rented sector. Tom said that they are perceived affordability issues. It is that first step into housing, and affordability is strongly relevant to that, but we find that people who can afford the rent are prevented from renting properties because of arbitrary barriers such as rent-in-advance and guarantor requests. To answer your question more directly, it is fair to say that the Bill does not introduce measures to address affordability in the sector. We think the Government should take a longer look at that and, to go back to my previous answer, take a more reasoned approach to rent controls. Essentially, they should explore the options, particularly where rent increases for sitting tenants are forcing them out of their homes. That undermines the core purpose of this Bill, which is to provide greater security for tenants and help them to avoid homelessness. Beyond that, it is clear that we need much greater provision of social housing and much more adequate housing benefit in order to tackle some of the affordability issues in the private rented sector.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is my first time on a Public Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so I might make a mistake with process. May I briefly point Jerome at the answers provided in written evidence and in earlier verbal evidence, which I felt answered the question already? In terms of, “Surely, won’t all tenants do it?”, I think we heard a clear answer that, for the vast majority of the population, anything to do with courts is a terrifying and bureaucratically faffy process that they will not want to engage with. On “Won’t landlords just max it out”—

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, then this is an invitation for you to talk us through your rationale, because that was my understanding. While I am at it, if there is anything where your mind has changed since the previous Bill, could you briefly talk us through why? Matthew Pennycook: It is important to give context for the debates on the previous Bill and why, in certain circumstances, we were probing the Minister on making grounds discretionary rather than mandatory, and whether we were pressing the then Minister on additional protections for tenants relating to some of those grounds. The rationale for that was ensuring that the grounds, if they were mandatory, would not be abused. I suppose where my thinking has changed on many of them—I will continue to think on whether we have done enough on specific grounds for possession to protect tenants against abuse—is that the other actions we have taken in the Bill provide the protection we need. I will give an example. On grounds 1 and 1A, where the previous protected period was smaller and the previous re-let period was much smaller—three months, not the 12 that we are proposing—in our view there was clear scope for abuse there. In many parts of the country, particularly hot rental markets—including London, and I am sure it is the same in Bristol—landlords are quite willing to suffer three-month void periods because the rents are so high. In a sense, if that is your re-let period on those mandatory grounds, you can get rid of what you consider a problem tenant, such as one who has complained perhaps entirely appropriately about damp, mould and other hazards. If you wait the three-month void period, then re-let, you have effectively recreated section 21 by the back door. I think we have dealt with the abuse, which is from memory where we were probing the Minister about the discretionary or mandatory distinction. We have provided protections in other ways in the majority of cases. I am giving consideration, as I say, to some of the grounds and whether we have quite got sufficient protections in place. I think Justin Bates KC, for example, raised ground 6A, where action is rightly taken against the landlord whose practices need bearing down on, but the tenant should not suffer in that regard.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about one of the things in your submission, so this may help you to expand on it. I thought your proposal on the right to withhold rent for serious disrepair is interesting: it sounds quite radical on the surface, but in any other sector, if one party was breaching a contract and failing to deliver a service, it would be quite normal to withhold payments. Can you expand at all on how that would work in practice or how you envisage it working? What are Acorn’s views on the proposed regime for managing unaffordable rent hikes, and is it enough? Anny Cullum: On withholding rent for serious disrepair, there are much-improved schemes and action within the Bill around the decent homes standard and improving standards for tenants, but a lot of the action set out to be taken if tenants are experiencing disrepair is retroactive or down the line. We know that councils can take a long time to act and that lots of tenants will not pursue things like rent repayment orders because they just do not have the time and energy. But if someone is living with serious disrepair—things like the damp and mould laid out in Awaab’s law, which we are pleased to see moving over to the private rented sector—we think there could be a mechanism whereby, if it is not fixed within the timescale set out by Awaab’s law, they could withhold their rent and pay it to a third party, which could then give the landlord another timescale within which to solve it. If they did not solve it, the tenant would get the rent paid back. If they did, the landlord would get the rent. That would be an immediate incentive to do the work and stop leaving people in the dangerous conditions we see all the time. Landlords are not necessarily going to worry in the moment about a rent repayment order that a tenant may or may not put in for, which would take ages to go through a court—landlords sometimes do not even pay them anyway—whereas, if you can withhold the rent, that will speed along the process of sorting out mouldy and unsafe homes. So that is the mechanism we would think of. There are lots of considerations as to how it could work. If you consult on bringing Awaab’s law into the private rented sector, that will be a good place to think about the best mechanism to do it. I think your second question was about rent hikes—rent rises.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Since you are an expert on the Scottish system, I will make use of your expertise; I want to ask more about rent controls. In my understanding, when the Scottish Government initially brought in rent controls in tenancy, that was because that was all they had the power to do at the time—they brought it in using existing legislation, initially during the cost of living crisis triggered by the pandemic—and ultimately, that they might do something different. You mentioned the Bill going through at the moment. In your view, is there an inherent problem with rent controls, or could the problems that you described be remedied by having some kind of controls between, as well as within, tenancies? Anna Evans: I think what we have concluded from all of the evidence is that the rent control has to be very carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. It is above my pay grade to say what that design might be, but there could be a range of ways in which landlords try to get around rent control. We have seen examples of offers from tenants—I understand that your Bill will avoid wars between tenants, in terms of rent levels, but because of demand-supply imbalance, tenants do offer landlords higher rents to get properties. Evidence across different states shows that rent control efficacy is variable, so it has to be very carefully designed.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Yes—whether you think that the Bill goes far enough to prevent or manage unaffordable rent hikes. Anny Cullum: Unfortunately, no. We as an organisation at the moment would never recommend that anyone go to the rent tribunal, because we have seen tenants go there and have more rent—a higher percentage—awarded than the landlord was asking for in the first place. We are pleased to see that you are going to get rid of that, but we would like to see rent rises capped at the lower of median wage growth over the last three years or inflation. From my experience, I know most tenants are not going to go to the tribunal. It is brilliant if they do, but a lot of people will accept the rise, or have to move out because they cannot afford it, or get into debt. This means that the people who do go to the tribunal will still be judged against market rents that are way more unaffordable than the one at which they went into their contract. Does that make sense? We are not going to bring rents down just by tinkering with the tribunal. This is mainly about making sure that people can stay in their homes and it does not undermine the Government’s efforts to prevent no-fault evictions. This could easily be used as a no-fault eviction by the back door. You could just put the rent up to a level that you know your tenant cannot afford. We do not think comparing what is affordable with new prices is the best way, so we would advocate for that cap on how much rent could be increased by.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a specific question on the new grounds for possession that we were just talking about. I interpreted the wording of the new ground that specifically gives the power to recover possession between June and September as potentially an oversight. One of the written statements we received—RRB 04, for Committee members—highlights that as well. The ground seems to fail to consider other kinds of students, such as people on a one-year Masters that starts in January, or nursing students who are often studying over the summer. I know, as I am friends with some of those people, that they found it hard enough to get housing on a non-traditional term as it was, without giving landlords a particular power to kick them out halfway through the summer when they are halfway through their course. Do you share that concern, and do you have suggestions for whether that should be changed? Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: There are significant numbers of students—I do not know the exact numbers, but more and more are starting with January start dates. Some universities have five points in the year when you can start a degree or a Masters. It is problematic for Masters students whose course goes on until September or October, when they are having to write up, or PhD students. That can be difficult. I think there should be more flexibility in the current timetable of June to September, and perhaps in the ability to give notice at different points in the year for student properties.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q One of the topics that has come up several times today is whether grounds for possession should all be discretionary, or whether some should be mandatory and some discretionary. I understand that, when the previous Renters (Reform) Bill was going through, you were in favour of them all being discretionary. Matthew Pennycook: That is not correct.

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

  More

  Many happy returns to the Leader of the House. This week, questions have been raised about whether Lord Walney is to be sacked as the Government’s anti-extremism adviser, amid concerns about his independence. I understand that a formal complaint will be lodged next week about paid roles that he held advising lobbyists for clients including fossil fuel and arms companies at the same time as he advised the Government that some peaceful climate protesters and anti-war protesters should be considered extremists. May we have a debate on whether we need to revisit the rules around when a Government adviser is formally described as independent, especially when the Government have said that they want to raise standards?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the new Members who have made their maiden speeches on the interesting and important points raised. I should declare that I am a member of Acorn Community Union, which campaigns on renters’ rights. Indeed, I have personally campaigned on renters’ rights for a long time now. This welcome Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise the rights of the 11 million people living in the private rented sector to have a safe, decent and secure home. In the words of activist Kwajo Tweneboa, we are facing “the biggest housing crisis since the Second World War”. We have a generation who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage and cannot even afford their rents now. The average rent in Bristol Central has hit nearly £1,800 a month, which is more than in several London boroughs, and a huge 47% of households in the constituency are in the private rented sector—that is 18,000 households. As the Secretary of State herself said, good landlords who are already acting fairly have nothing to fear from this Bill, but the rogue ones—like the landlord of my constituent who made countless reports of damp mould and leaks for months with no resolution until the ceiling fell in—need to be held to account. I really recognise the many good parts of the Bill, but I hope the Government will go further on three key issues: security of tenure, rent affordability and energy efficiency. On security of tenure, the extension of notice periods to four months for landlord sale and moving in is progress, but we must have clear evidence thresholds for those grounds of no-fault eviction and measures to ensure that the 12-month “no re-letting” period is not broken. We also need an automatic right of non-payment of rent in the final two months to compensate a tenant for the disruption of being forced to move home. The proposal to outlaw bidding wars is okay as far as it goes, but it is not likely to be effective in tackling rising rents. Landlords could still hike rents to kick people out, so we really need a cap on rent increases within tenancies, set at the lowest of either average wage growth or inflation. Rents in advance should be capped to one month—as a Labour Member suggested—to stop discrimination against people on low incomes. But rents are too high in the first place. To illustrate this point, if a 21-year-old living in Bristol rents a single room today at the average rate, they will have put £80,000 into their landlord’s bank account by the time they reach their 30th birthday. We need a system of rent controls, carefully introduced with local flexibility, aimed at bringing rents down relative to incomes, alongside a suite of policies to address the housing crisis, including a major increase in social housing and real support for community-led housing.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) makes a good point about guarantors, and I would also like to see that issue addressed in this Bill. Citizens Advice reports that almost half of private renters are living in homes plagued with cold, damp or mould. Winter fuel bills are due to go up by 10%, and the winter fuel allowance is being cut for millions of pensioners. It is good to hear that the Government’s regulations will apply to social housing as well as private housing, but that commitment needs to be explicitly enshrined in this Bill, and let us get going on energy efficiency—there is no time for delay. There was a consultation on energy efficiency in the private rented sector in 2020, so let us not do another; let us just get on with it. We must properly fund our local councils, which will enforce these new rights. Councils that are on the brink of bankruptcy after 14 years of swingeing cuts will obviously struggle to deliver this part of the policy. We need a shift in how we think about renting. In policy and practice, we should move away from viewing housing as an asset—as an investment for the wealthy— and towards prioritising and valuing the right to a stable home. Almost every point of improvement that I have suggested today has been raised by members and ex-members of the Labour party, so I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will give them very serious consideration. This is such a welcome and important Bill. I hope it can be made even better to become truly transformative. My Green colleagues and I will be voting for the Renters’ Rights Bill tonight.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Workers in High-Carbon Sectors · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, the unjust transitions we are seeing in Grangemouth and Port Talbot are a damning indictment of the lack of a proactive approach to a just transition over the last few years. Tomorrow at the Treasury, over 50 major unions and climate groups will be calling for a new approach to the energy transition where, instead of just de-risking private profit, there is a governmental ringfenced funding package for North sea oil and gas workers, including help with skills and job creation. Will the Secretary of State or Ministers please meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secure, so that we can stop betting on the industry to do the right thing?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Workers in High-Carbon Sectors · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to ensure a just transition for workers in high-carbon sectors.

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq, for reminding me of process and having patience with me during my first Westminster Hall debate. Thank you, too, to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for facilitating this debate. At the end of a year of record-shattering temperatures and climate extremes, COP29 will prove a test of our collective willingness to respond to the climate crisis with the urgency and resolve it demands. We know that there is no room for new fossil fuel infrastructure if we are to have any chance of staying within safe climate limits. That is a scientific fact—one that the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and countless experts have made clear. Historic progress was made at COP28, when the UK joined nearly 200 countries in agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels, marking a major breakthrough for international climate action. One year on, COP29 has the vital task of locking in momentum towards that promise. Yet despite the science and the consensus reached in Dubai, Governments around the world plan to produce 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with just a 50% chance of limiting warming to the Paris agreement goal of 1.5°. About half of all planned oil and gas developments between now and 2050 will be sanctioned by five wealthy Governments who position themselves as climate leaders, one of which is the UK. With the COP29 summit being hosted in a country with plans to increase its fossil fuel production by a third over the next decade, there is an urgent need for other big polluters, such as the UK, to show better leadership. Unless the promise made in Dubai is seen as a clear instruction to quit fossil fuels, last year’s hard-won consensus is destined to fall apart. Rhetoric must be met with action. In that context, the Government’s intention to consult on ending licences for the exploration of new oil and gas fields is a welcome relief from the previous Government’s dangerous obsession with maxing out fossil fuels. It marks a small step towards ending years of climate hypocrisy, which have undermined our position in international negotiations. However, it is only the bare minimum of ambition. To do what is necessary for both the climate and the UK’s credibility in international fora, the Government must move quickly to lock in their no new licensing position, and take the urgent next step of stopping development consents for all new oil and gas fields. That must be done alongside bringing forward a coherent plan to transition oil and gas workers into the clean energy jobs of the future, so that we can show other countries that that transition can and will be done in a fair and just way. Let us take the example of Rosebank. Bringing that oilfield online would be catastrophic for our climate and our international reputation. Burning the oil and gas from that huge field would produce over 200 million tonnes of CO 2 —more than the 28 lowest-income countries combined produce in a year. The emissions created just by extracting the oil from Rosebank would see the UK’s oil and gas industry blow past its emissions reduction target. Aside from being a climate crime, the new field would go against what is needed to strengthen the UK’s energy security—lower bills and a just transition. I welcome the Government doing the sensible thing and deciding not to defend in court the previous Government’s approval of new oil drilling at Rosebank, which makes it even more likely that the legal challenge against the field will be successful. If Equinor then seeks approval for the field again, the Government will have the opportunity to make a fresh start and a fresh decision on Rosebank. If presented with that opportunity, will the Government make the right choice, reject the field and mark the end of the road for climate-wrecking oil and gas projects in UK waters? Only then can we begin to rebuild our credibility on the global stage and reasonably look other countries in the eye at the negotiating table as we ask them to keep their own oil and gas reserves in the ground. As a country with broad shoulders and historic responsibility for accelerating climate chaos, the UK not only has a duty to deliver the transition away from fossil fuels here at home, but must play a leading role in supporting those countries that are least responsible for, but worst impacted by, climate breakdown. Baku’s big test, therefore, will be the delivery of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. This is a crucial opportunity for richer countries to contribute their fair share, following years of broken promises and failure to deliver the $100 billion on time. At this COP, we must ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. That means agreeing a new goal that is not just a political deal but a real number, based on the needs of people in the global south and of vulnerable populations on the frontline of climate impacts. A black-box headline figure without clarity on how it will be delivered will not do. We must ensure that the goal results in funds that are genuinely new and additional, not double-counted from existing aid budgets—a reprehensible practice that has played a huge role in allowing the climate finance gap to widen over the past decade. Indeed, in February, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that under the previous Government the Foreign Office reclassified around £1.7 billion of existing UK aid as international climate finance. The UK has one of the largest gaps between its fair share and the climate finance it has delivered. We are letting the world down—it is right there in black and white—so will the Government ensure that UK negotiators show up to COP29 with a mandate to champion an ambitious new climate finance goal, and will they unlock the necessary public finance in addition to private finance? There is much more the UK could be doing, from tackling tax abuse and evasion by the extremely wealthy and corporations, removing subsidies for fossil fuels and looking at undertaxed sectors such as aviation, where the “polluter pays” principle is simply not being upheld. Justice requires that the nations most responsible for the climate crisis step up. That is our cue.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. The Government have rightly scrapped the Rwanda scheme, but the UK is falling behind our international counterparts in providing safe routes for refugees. We are now one of the only countries in Europe where refugee children cannot sponsor their family members to join them here. Organisations such as the Refugee Council have documented the harm that causes. Will the Home Secretary please confirm that the Government’s mission to improve opportunity for all extends to refugee children, and that they will amend the immigration rules accordingly?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Asylum Seekers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  No recourse to public funds is a policy that prevents most migrants in the UK from accessing most forms of welfare support. I would like to see the policy scrapped altogether to reduce child poverty and homelessness, but, at the very least, will the Minister stop applying it to the visas of any parents of children under 18 to ensure that children can be adequately protected against poverty and destitution?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Asylum Seekers: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking to help prevent asylum seekers from becoming destitute.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome much of what the Minister has said in this announcement, including on the need for a just transition for those working in the oil and gas sector. However, before the election, the Government made a commitment to end new oil and gas licences, although they are still planning to allow the new Rosebank oil field to open, despite it being connected to a level of carbon emissions that we simply cannot allow in this country. I have two questions about the future of oil and gas. First, will the Minister confirm how and when the ending of new oil and gas licences will happen? Secondly, will the Government reconsider the opening of the disastrous Rosebank oil and gas field?

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) raised a concern about solar threatening our ability to grow our own food in this country. I respectfully suggest that he checks out the recent research by Exeter University, which shows that we could increase the amount of renewable energy we generate in this country 13 times over using, I believe, less than 3% of the UK’s land, and none of the highest-grade agricultural land—

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jul 2024 · Border Security and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  It is a huge relief that the vile Rwanda scheme has been scrapped. I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s statement. Given that 94% of people seeking asylum in this country are ready and eager to work to support themselves, and that freezing them out of work leaves them in destitution and means that the UK misses out on tax revenue from their work, and on much-needed specialists and professionals such as the nurse I met recently in an asylum seeker project in Bristol, will the Home Secretary take the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and urgently lift the ban on asylum seekers working?

• 18 Jul 2024 · Foreign Affairs and Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today’s debate. Good afternoon, colleagues. My name is Carla Denyer. My pronouns are she/her, and I am very much looking forward to getting to know you all. I congratulate the hon. Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on their interesting maiden speeches. I also want to take a moment to honour the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her very compelling speech about the route to peace in Gaza and Israel. I look forward to working with all the newly elected MPs, and, in fact, everybody in this place, in pursuit of a better future for our constituents. I will return to the shape of that future shortly, but first I want to look back for a moment and to thank the people of Bristol Central for making history and electing me as the first Green MP for the city and also, as far as I am aware, the first bisexual MP for the constituency. We are, as a city, rightly proud of our firsts. In 1371—do not worry, I will not be doing every year—the town of Bristol was the first in England to be given the status of a county. In 1739, John Wesley founded the very first Methodist chapel, The New Room, in what is now the very heart of my constituency. In 2015, the city became the first in the UK to be given the European Green Capital award. In 2016, the city elected Marvin Rees, and thus became the first major European city to elect a mayor of black African heritage. And what is widely agreed to be Banksy’s first large stencil mural—The Mild Mild West—was painted in 1999, in Stokes Croft in my constituency. In fact, it is on a wall just around the corner from where I first met a member of the Green party—a meeting that rather changed the course of my life. Unfortunately, the history of Bristol cannot, and must not, be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. A 1499 voyage, led by merchant William Weston of Bristol, was the first expedition commanded by an Englishman to North America. And rich Bristol merchants financed more than 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. Those ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to slave labour in the Americas. A blue plaque on the Seven Stars Inn on Thomas Lane in the city centre marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the Seven Stars’ landlord, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence here in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the 1807 Slave Trade Act, which eventually led to the historic end of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans. Bristol Central’s hugely successful M Shed museum highlights the anti-slavery movement, alongside its exhibition about modern public protests, including the Bristol bus boycott, and it holds the infamous, now-toppled Colston statue. The exhibition points to the abolition campaign as the start of a British tradition of society campaigning for change. Today, the city that I have proudly called home for 15 years, and part of which I am now immensely proud to represent here in Parliament, is beginning to take responsibility for its history, and continuing to lead the way when it comes to demanding change. Like most of the other esteemed Members making their maiden speeches, I got the Library note advising me that my remarks should not be politically contentious or critical. I admit to having struggled a little with how to define that, given that I am here first and foremost to demand and create change on behalf of my constituents. In 1943, a slightly different-shaped version of Bristol Central elected its first woman MP. I can applaud that landmark moment, though not Lady Apsley’s reported radical right-wing conservatism, imperialist, racist and antisemitic views, or the fact that she apparently considered women first and foremost as wives and mothers. She made her maiden speech to the Commons from her wheelchair and, it is widely reported, defied convention by making a passionate appeal for the better treatment of disabled people. That is one thing on which I can agree with her, though I do not think that championing disabled rights should ever be considered controversial. I hope that in this Parliament it never will be. Nor do I think that a voting system that makes every vote count is an especially controversial proposition, so I agree strongly with another of my predecessors: Stephen Williams, the first Liberal Democrat ever to represent what was then Bristol West. He used his maiden speech to call for, as he put it, radical electoral reform and for first past the post to be swept away and replaced with a system of fair votes. Now is a good moment to recognise the contribution to Parliament made by my immediate predecessor, Thangam Debbonaire, including as shadow Leader of the House. I pay tribute to her work on behalf of Bristolians, particularly in support of the city’s amazing creative industries as shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and her groundbreaking move to hold what is believed to have been the first-ever constituency surgery for people on the autistic spectrum. Thank you, Thangam, for your service to the city. What unites all these threads is the idea of speaking up for what we believe in regardless of whether others might find it contentious, or whether we are swimming against the popular tide. As an MP, I am determined to fully honour Bristol Central’s history of doing exactly that: using my voice as a force for good, for real change and for real hope, to create a brighter future for my constituents and for us all—the kind of future that the King’s Speech represents an opportunity to build. That bright future depends on the Government taking bold action to tackle inequality and poverty through measures such as lifting the two-child benefit cap, a mass council-house building programme, and giving councils the power to keep private rents under control. Private rents in Bristol have increased by 52% over the last decade, while wages have not even increased by a quarter. This is an untenable situation, but one that around half my constituents find themselves in as private renters. The bright future that I talked about depends on defending and restoring our public services, from hospitals to dentists, schools and youth services, and it means looking to restore the UK’s reputation on the world stage. This is a reputation that has been sorely damaged by Brexit. I know that I speak for the majority of Bristol Central when I say that we must be open and active in our efforts to rebuild stronger links with Europe and work eventually towards a future where the UK can rejoin the EU. It is a reputation too that has been compromised by our Government’s refusal to clearly condemn the Israeli Government’s disproportionate response to the horrific terrorist attacks of 7 October, and in particular by the UK’s continuing arms sales for use against Palestinians, in persistent breach of international law. I am clear that that must stop, and I am clear too that demanding it should not be controversial. Finally, it is a reputation that has been seriously eroded in relation to climate action. As a councillor I was responsible for proposing the UK’s first climate emergency motion in autumn 2018—another first for Bristol. I know what the climate science requires that we get done in the lifetime of this Parliament, as this critical decade for the climate marches on. The brighter future we all want for our constituents and our country demands that we urgently secure a liveable future. Our warming planet has just passed another milestone. For the first time, global temperatures were above the crucial 1.5°C limit for an entire year. I hope this House will agree that that is one first that we all have a responsibility to try to ensure is also a last. The last Government sought to break the climate consensus, to weaponise culture wars and to spread lies and misinformation about what a net zero future will be like. This Government must reverse the damage and have the courage to show genuine climate leadership at this critical time in our planet’s history. I will stand with the Government if they do that, but I will not be afraid to speak up where I think they might need to go a little faster. We have heard in the King’s Speech a commitment to a cleaner energy transition and public ownership of public transport, and I hope more will be forthcoming across the weeks and months ahead of us. I stand ready to work across party lines to help to secure the ambitious changes we need for our climate and our natural world and to make the UK a fairer place. In fact I have already begun that cross-party work, so I say a big thank you to the hon. Members of other parties and none who have signed my amendment to the Loyal Address already, and well done to those MPs whose amendments and motions I have in turn supported. The challenges that we face together, and that our constituents face daily, are too important for us to fall victim to political tribalism. As Bristol Central’s many firsts illustrate, all our choices today will become part of history. As a Green MP, I feel that responsibility on my shoulders. I will do everything I can to carry it responsibly and repay the enormous trust put in me by the people of Bristol Central.