Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

Nine of our European allies have written to Strasbourg, requesting a reset of the European convention on human rights to allow national Parliaments to remove foreign offenders who threaten public safety. Britain’s signature is missing. In fact, we were not even asked to join. Unfortunately, that says everything about the way in which this Government are viewed by others. Can the Solicitor General confirm whether the Government will now back that initiative, or will they leave it to others to defend the primacy of democratic lawmaking?

[The Solicitor General]

As the Lord Chancellor made very clear yesterday, the UK remains committed to the ECHR, but it is absolutely right that as the challenges facing modern democracies evolve, so must international law and, indeed, domestic interpretation of that law. This Government are taking a serious, considered and responsible approach, and we have a history of engaging constructively with the Court.

[Helen Grant]

According to press reports, Qari Abdul Rauf, a convicted ringleader of the Rochdale child rape gang, is still living in the town. That is nearly 10 years after a judge ordered his deportation. Repeated appeals under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to family life —have blocked his removal. What action are the Government taking to stop criminals abusing article 8 to defeat Parliament’s clear intention to deport them?

[The Solicitor General]

If you come to this country, you play by our rules. That is why since we came into office, we have been taking action to ensure that foreign offenders can be deported at the earliest opportunity. In the period since we have been in office, we have deported nearly 30,000 foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. That is the highest rate of returns for more than half a decade. It is the right thing to do, it will save prison capacity, and it will save taxpayers’ money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I wish to add my own tribute to those who bravely fought for our freedom.

Marks & Spencer is a much-loved cornerstone of the Great British high street and an important part of our economy. Many Members right across this House will be shocked to learn that over half a billion pounds has been wiped off its value following a serious ransomware attack. Harrods and the Co-op have also been attacked, and yesterday the Legal Aid Agency was attacked too. Can the Solicitor General confirm what role the Attorney General’s Office has played in ensuring that the criminal justice system treats such attacks robustly? How is it overseeing the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and other relevant agencies to economic and cyber-crime more broadly?

[The Solicitor General]

The shadow Solicitor General raises an important issue. We know that this type of crime is on the increase, and it is clearly vital that enforcement agencies and the CPS give it due prominence. She refers to some extremely well-known and much-loved brands. It is important that all those agencies play a role in enhancing awareness of this type of crime, such that it can be properly prevented. The SFO in particular plays a role in raising awareness of online crime so as to protect the public as well as businesses.

[Helen Grant]

I thank the Solicitor General for her response. Can she confirm what assessment she has made of the economic and legal risks posed by ransomware attacks on large UK businesses? Can she give an indication of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that companies of national economic importance are better protected and supported in the aftermath of such incidents?

[The Solicitor General]

As I said, the shadow Solicitor General raises extremely important issues—issues that the Government are alive to. This is a cross-Government issue, frankly, and it is important to all those partner enforcement agencies. I can assure her that work is ongoing and is being done to protect businesses and the public from these kind of attacks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

The independent review of the Southport attacks condemns the CPS and police’s “near-silence” following the attacks and establishes silence as a catalyst for media disinformation and public distrust. It states that silence

“in the face of horrific events of major public interest is no longer an option.”

Does the Solicitor General accept that Government secrecy fuelled conspiracy theories and thus eroded confidence in our justice system, or is the independent King’s Counsel wrong?

[The Solicitor General]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I completely reject the allegation of Government secrecy. Certainly, when it comes to Southport, those murders were some of the most harrowing in our country’s history and it was absolutely right that due process was followed to allow for the successful conviction. It was vital that justice was done in those cases.

The shadow Solicitor General will know that there are issues around contempt, which the Law Commission is looking at. The Law Commission has agreed to a request from the Home Secretary to speed up that review and it is vital that we get the results of that review as soon as possible.

[Helen Grant]

The independent review warned that government silence

“risked far more prejudice to any trial”

than transparency. Indeed, as is often said, the truth can be the best disinfectant. Will the Solicitor General therefore agree to greater transparency around major events in future and to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations on the provision of information to the public to ensure that that never happens again?

[The Solicitor General]

The shadow Solicitor General refers to Jonathan Hall and the terrorism review. Terrorism is, of course, something that the Government take extremely seriously. Jonathan Hall’s review has now concluded and it is right that his report—coupled with the contempt review—is considered in full by the Home Secretary, as an important step in addressing all those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

The Attorney General has admitted to recusing himself from certain matters; he has also maintained absolute silence about which matters those may be. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves: is that the level of transparency that our democracy demands? What safeguards exist when the Attorney General’s past clients and present duties overlap? Who, independent of the Attorney General himself, scrutinises those critical decisions on recusal, or do we face the concerning spectacle of the Government’s chief legal adviser marking his own homework?

[The Solicitor General]

As I have outlined, the Attorney General’s Office has rigorous and long-standing processes in place. Upon appointment, the AGO compiles a list of matters in which the Law Officer has previously been involved, by searching cases, cross-referencing with information obtained by the Law Officer’s chambers or firm and working through the list with the Law Officer themselves. The Office works with the Government Legal Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office to obtain additional information and compile the final list of conflicts and actions associated with each case. As the shadow Solicitor General knows, the Attorney General cannot publish a list of his former clients due to client confidentiality. [Interruption.] Opposition Members groan, but client confidentiality is a fundamental principle. Absolutely ridiculous.

The shadow Solicitor General mentioned recusal. The Attorney General has already indicated in the other place that he has recused himself from matters. The Law Officers’ convention prohibits me from listing those matters. No other Law Officer has ever published a list of the cases that they are recused from

[Helen Grant]

The Solicitor General, her predecessor and every Conservative Law Officer from the previous Administration rightly and properly understood their duty to declare previous earnings. Why does the Attorney General refuse to declare moneys received from his practice as a barrister? Why does he not acknowledge whether he continues to receive such payments when his predecessors routinely declared both? Why does this Attorney General think that there is one rule for him and another rule for everyone else?

[The Solicitor General]

The Attorney General is in the House of Lords, so the rules that apply are different from those that apply in the House of Commons. That is the difference between the Attorney General and the previous Solicitor General and me. Those requirements are the same for all peers, including the Attorney General, and they apply just as much to the shadow Attorney General. The Lords Commissioners for Standards said that they considered the complaints made by the shadow Justice Secretary about the peers code of conduct, and dismissed them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish you and the team a very happy Christmas indeed. I congratulate the Solicitor General on her position and welcome her to her place. I hope to work constructively and effectively with her on this challenging and very important part of Government.

As the Solicitor General knows, rape victims need action now, urgently, given that many rape cases take more than two years to come to trial. There has been much talk from Ministers about opening specialist fast-track rape courts, but disappointingly there has been very little detail to date. How will the Government achieve that fast-tracking if they do not use all potential court sitting days, as requested by the Lady Chief Justice but refused by the Lord Chancellor?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the shadow Solicitor General for her kind words. She brings an awful lot of experience and expertise to her role, and I look forward to working constructively with her. She raises the issue of violence against women and girls, and refers to Crown court sitting days. I said earlier that I am very pleased that an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days were added by the Lord Chancellor yesterday. That is very important, because it will allow the fast-tracking that she refers to of the backlog in our courts.

[Helen Grant]

I fully support the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade, but how will the Government’s progress be measured to ensure that they deliver against their target? What assessment has been made of the definition of violence against women and girls?

[The Solicitor General]

Timeliness is clearly key, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to our commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We will take urgent action, building on the urgent action we have already taken. In November, for example, pilots of the new domestic abuse protection orders began with three police forces, enabling them to provide additional protection to victims.

The hon. Lady will know that the police and the CPS have launched their domestic abuse joint justice plan. Improvements in partnership working under the plan have already led to a modest increase in referrals of domestic abuse cases from the police to the CPS, setting a strong foundation for future improvements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Solicitor General to the Front Bench.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to stand at the Dispatch Box again, albeit on the other side of this great Chamber. I hope to work constructively with the hon. and learned Lady on this challenging and very intricate part of Government.

Violence against women and children is abhorrent and inexcusable. It crushes self-confidence and self-esteem in victims, wrecks families and ruins lives. As someone who was a family lawyer for 23 years before coming to this place, I welcome the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade. To achieve that important goal, what action are the Government taking on prevention and early intervention, and when will the specialist rape courts be introduced?

[The Solicitor General]

I welcome the shadow Solicitor General to her place. She brings enormous experience, not only in legal matters but specifically in relation to violence against women and girls, and I look forward to working constructively with her in this area. I also take the opportunity to welcome the appointment of the new shadow Attorney General, and send my best wishes to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) as he departs his role.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, she is right that the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade is a cross-Government initiative. Prevention and early intervention are a core part of that; that is why when the VAWG mission board met earlier, there was a real focus on education—how we educate about consent and early intervention, so that we can prevent these cases from entering the criminal justice process.

[Helen Grant]

The Government have announced an extra £49 million in funding to support victims of crime and say that the funding will enable additional staff recruitment at the specialist rape and serious sexual offence unit of the Crown Prosecution Service. Can the Solicitor General confirm to the House the number of additional staff to be taken on? When will they be in place?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady is right to welcome the additional £49 million, which will be invested in those specialist rape and serious sexual violence units in every CPS area, but it is important that the CPS has discretion over how that money is spent and makes sure that resources are directed and targeted at areas where they are most needed, so that we can deliver for the victims of these most serious crimes.

Food Security and Farming

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

May I make a point about viability, very briefly? I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on this debate and on making such important points. I appreciate that she may not have time to go into the international aspects, but does she agree that we need to have a much more ambitious food and wine export strategy that promotes brand Britain, and that we must genuinely address the legitimate concerns of farmers in relation to food standards and cheaper imports?

[Wendy Morton]

I am a passionate supporter of British farming and produce. In recent years, we have seen a greater focus on exports of British food, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is an international angle to all this. Alas, I doubt that I will have time to cover it, but I will see how much progress I make. The situation in Ukraine—the breadbasket of Europe—has highlighted just how important global markets are when it comes to food and food security.

We also need to do more to tackle food waste, which is another of my pet hates at home. It is important that we do all we can to help people to reduce food waste. Food waste is bad for landfill, and it goes right down to the household level. I am interested to hear what the Minister might have to say on that.

I particularly want to mention two other key areas: first, land use, the environment, land for food production and solar farms; and secondly, support for our farmers. I will take support for our farmers first, because a number of Members have alluded to its importance. In my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, we have only a small number of farmers, but they are very important to the local economy and the national production of food. Local farmers tell me that the cost of fertiliser has gone up by 161%. I spoke to farmers who have had to find an eye-watering extra £200,000 just to cover the increase in costs. When they produce a crop or a product on contract, they cannot just put their price up because prices are fixed. Red diesel has doubled in price. I think we all appreciate and understand that there is volatility of energy costs. Whether they need heat for greenhouses or refrigeration for the storage of potatoes, farmers are being hit in a number of ways. The cost of growing a tomato, as we realise when we go into a supermarket or a shop, rose by 27% between 2021 and 2022.

The environmental land management scheme has seen a reduction in basic payments, and by 2028 will be no more. In 2022, it was recorded that £22 million-worth of fruit and veg had been wasted due to a workforce shortage for picking. I appreciate that the Department is working on that, but something is not quite right when we have to waste food because we cannot pick it and process it, particularly when some are struggling to afford food. It was highlighted to me this morning that the UK horticulture sector alone needs around 70,000 workers each year to harvest fruit and veg. What more is the Minister’s Department doing to address that issue? Our farmers and our farms need support.

There will always be pressures on our land—farming versus housing and development. I know that particularly because my constituency is on the edge of the west midlands, close to the urban sprawl of Birmingham. Land use has to be about balance. I am sure that the Minister is aware of two recent petitions to the House of Commons: one to ban development on agricultural land; and another that calls on the Government to consider the cumulative impact of solar farm developments on the availability of agricultural land.

My good friend the Minister knows that I talk a lot in this place about protecting the green belt and developing a brownfield-first policy approach to housing and development. That is the right and sensible way to protect our countryside, our food supplies and our farms while also delivering the homes that local communities need.

I might be straying off the point a little here, Sir Edward, but I will bring it back to the debate. With the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently undertaking a consultation on the national planning policy framework, and with the Levelling-up Bill passing through the other place, it would be remiss of me not to press the Minister and ask him if he could explain a little more about the position of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it comes to the balance between development and protecting our green spaces.

South East Water

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing this important debate today, and I thank him and our Minister for allowing me to make a few short remarks this morning.

My constituency of Maidstone and The Weald borders my right hon. Friend’s constituency of Tunbridge Wells. Many of my constituents were also completely or substantially without water between 19 December and Christmas day. The main areas affected were Staplehurst, Marden, Cranbrook and Benenden. The problem occurred because of a very large number of leaks and burst pipes following a 20° swing in temperatures from -7° to 13°. The combined effect of a 300% increase in burst pipes led to the loss of 100 million litres of water from the system in 24 hours. In addition to people’s homes and Christmas plans being affected, businesses such as Iden Manor Farm in Staplehurst were unable to supply drinking water to their livestock. Staplehurst’s only pub, the Kings Head, had to close for several days from 20 December to Boxing day. It lost considerable business at a critical time of year.

Sadly, the initial communication response from South East Water was well below standard. There were few updates on websites and people could not get through on emergency telephone lines. Those that did get through were given false timescales for when the water would go back on. In Benenden, people were told that drinking water was available in Pembury, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, Pembury is 13 miles from Benenden, so that was a completely unrealistic suggestion.

However, like my right hon. Friend, I am very grateful to the South East Water engineers and teams on the ground who worked continuously, including on Christmas day and Boxing day—I believe new year’s day, too—to make sure that most people’s water was back on by Christmas day. Thankfully, water levels in my constituency now are back to normal levels for this time of year.

My office has convened a multi-agency meeting with the chief executive of South East Water, Mr David Hinton, on 7 February. Clearly, there are serious questions to be answered and lessons to be learned. We also need to know what its plan of action is, going forward, to avoid a repetition. I want to hear from our Minister today about the availability of compensation for those who suffered financial loss, and I also want to know how we can build a much more resilient water system to deal with the effects of climate change now and in future.

Puppy Smuggling

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Indeed, several recommendations can really be carried out only if and when—or rather when—we leave the EU, because at the moment we have to abide by certain conditions. Indeed, leaving the EU may enable us to be a little more active in this area. I will make a couple more points about that later.

If Government agencies could provide an enhanced presence at our ports, make more checks outside normal office hours and introduce mandatory visual checks at the border, we would both increase the likelihood of intercepting smuggled puppies and, I hope, disincentivise breeders from transporting puppies that are visibly under age. Visual checks are not always carried out. That was proved by Dogs Trust, which was able to smuggle a child’s toy dog through the British border on not one but two occasions without anyone noticing that it was not a real dog.

Other suggested changes include introducing on-the-spot fines, as Members have mentioned, perhaps to the value of the puppies seized, which may be more than £500—it may be £1,500 or more. Big fines would better reflect the seriousness of the crime.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. I hear what he says about the various actions that can and should be taken, but does he agree that there is an onus on owners, too, to ensure that puppies come from a legitimate source?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and has stolen the end of my speech in some ways. This is the key point. One of the purposes of the debate is not only to make policy recommendations but to help educate the public, who are innocently buying puppies without full knowledge of where they came from. The onus is on them as well to take action, and I will make a couple of suggestions for changes in a moment.

As well as on-the-spot fines, other areas for changes could include such things as further co-ordination and co-operation between UK and eastern and central European law enforcement, Government agencies and Departments and of course veterinary bodies, and especially a crackdown on those vets who supply fake passports for pets. The all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare identified that puppies are at their most desirable between the ages of about two and three months, so by raising the minimum age to, say, six months, we could reduce the incentive to import young puppies. Raising that minimum age would also make it easier for border agents to assess the age of puppies more accurately.

Some wish to go further and ban the third-party sale of puppies altogether. There are some valid arguments for that. That would allow purchases to be made only through responsible breeders and official rehoming centres, effectively banning the sale of puppies through pet shops, for example. The Government have already committed to introducing new regulations for dog breeding. I hope they will consider all options—another option suggested by many is formal recognition of the Kennel Club’s assured breeder scheme.

We must seek to avoid the unintended consequences that further regulation could bring, such as encouraging an underground market or increasing the burden on those who are fairly, legally and professionally breeding in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing this important debate on puppy smuggling. It is a subject close to my heart; indeed, I sponsored a debate on puppy farming in the previous parliamentary Session. I am therefore pleased in one sense that this debate is happening, but in another sense I am displeased that it has to happen. However, I congratulate him on making it happen.

Puppy smuggling is enabled—even encouraged—by third-party sellers such as pet shops and puppy dealers, which are vessels for the irresponsible, low-welfare commercial dog breeding, in the UK and abroad, commonly described as puppy farming. Endorsing any commercial puppy movement from abroad to the UK conveniently hands responsibility for any animal welfare standards designed to protect breeding dogs on puppy farms, and laws on puppy transportation, to the country of origin—well out of our control. This is clearly unacceptable, and can only encourage an even greater lack of breeder traceability, transparency and accountability than is found in legal puppy farming in the UK.

Putting an end to the legal sale of puppies through third-party agents licensed by the Government as pet shops—anyone in the business of commercially buying and selling puppies without their mums—and not just from high street premises, will go a long way towards eradicating the unacceptable activity of puppy smuggling. Little improvement can be made while this “legitimate” outlet—the market—exists.

[Mrs Helen Grant]

Does the hon. Lady agree that banning third-party puppy sales might help to reduce impulse purchases, especially around Christmas?

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point and pre-empts a point that I was going to mention later. I thank her for that excellent contribution.

The decision to implement a wholesale ban now rests with the Government, but despite the ongoing efforts of many wonderful parliamentarians, some on the Minister’s own party’s Benches, who have, for years, repeatedly raised this issue, the Government stubbornly continue to resist a ban. As recently as 17 October, the Minister told the House:

“We do not believe that a ban on third-party sellers is necessary”—[Official Report, 17 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 820.]

That brief dismissal is unacceptable. It shows complete disregard for the suffering of the dogs and puppies, and for the emotional—and often financial—impact that has on owners. I would like to see the Minister tell those owners whose puppies die within a few days of purchase that banning the trade is not necessary, or visiting a licenced commercial breeding establishment, here or abroad, that sells smuggled or legally puppy-farmed puppies without their mums through pet shops and dealers and then saying honestly that it is necessary for those poor dogs to lead that kind of half-life. It is not necessary.

There is no possible justification for this appalling industry that sells pups from puppy farms, whether they are transported from abroad or bred in the UK. We cannot allow that to continue to be legally acceptable, because it cannot be done without causing some degree of harm. We all know that the Government know that, too. Moments after reassuring the Commons that a ban was not necessary and that it was better to aim for more robust licensing, the Minister effectively revealed that the Government already knew that that was not enough. Furthermore, he told the House not only that a ban was not necessary, but that

“that view is shared by many stakeholders.” —[Official Report, 17 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 820.]

Only two—Dogs Trust and Blue Cross—have made their views known and continue to refuse to support a ban on puppies sold in pet shops. Will the Minister reveal who the “many stakeholders” are who do not believe a ban on third-party sales is necessary?

If an activity is licensed, it is supposed to be safe. The licence is supposed to reassure the public that the trader is to be trusted. To the public, it is an official legal stamp of approval. Yet the Government have no confidence that so-called robust licensing for third-party sellers will offer effective protection. By continuing to advise purchasers to buy only from reputable breeders, and to see the puppy with its mother in the place where it was born, the Government are essentially contradicting themselves and telling purchasers not to buy from those “robustly” licensed third-party sellers.

It takes an incredible amount of willpower to walk away when confronted by the reality of a puppy that seems to be in an unsatisfactory situation. The Minister said that consumer pressure would drive down the sale of puppies from third parties such as pet shops, but it is completely unrealistic to expect puppy buyers to separate the wheat from the chaff at the moment of purchase, nor should that burden rest with them. They will inevitably think of the puppy first and the consequences later. The British public should not have to try to make sense of the fact that Government guidance recommends seeing a puppy with its mother, while the Government are content to permit puppies to be sold without their mothers by third-party sellers in licensed pet shops.

The Government’s priority is to protect people by protecting puppies. Today, let us all send out a strong cross-party message that there is no justification for the existence of puppy smuggling, farming or trafficking—whatever hon. Members want to label it—and that removing their primary market is the first step toward eliminating that horrendous trade. Dogs and their people deserve better. I urge the Minister to please do the right thing. It would be a timely move, with the Christmas rush for puppies about to rear its ugly head. I urge him to commit to banning the third-party trade in puppies and removing the legal market for smuggled pups.

Flood Re Insurance Scheme

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson]

My hon. Friend is in many respects raising the very issue that I am about to deal with, so I obviously have a great deal of sympathy. Again, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that point.

The real issue concerns long leaseholders who live in a property that is in effect their principal private residence—it is where they live, have their family and community, and so on. To all intents and purposes they are homeowners, but for a variety of legal and technical reasons they do not own the freehold—they are long leaseholders, but they do not own the freehold.

A group of long leaseholders will have a lessor, which is usually a management company. The management company owns the freehold and individuals take a lease on the property. Often the management company is in fact owned by the leaseholders. Leases may be for 999 years, and the freeholder is the management company, which would control it from there. They would be responsible for the communal areas, which could include grass cutting and roads, and may be responsible for parts of the fabric of the property, depending on the nature of the leasehold interests—whether it is a tenement flat going upwards or a group of properties next to each other. There will be variations, depending on the structure of the agreement at the outset. Interestingly enough, the landlord will be invariably responsible for ensuring that covenants between leaseholders are enforced to ensure that they comply with certain requirements under the terms of the leases.

It is interesting that the Flood Re legislation already allows for that set-up to a certain extent. It is allowed for properties of three flats, and three only. We could therefore have a situation where a landlord occupied one of the three properties—admittedly, they would have to live in one of them—and had another two on leasehold that are covered by Flood Re.

I will read from a letter from someone in the circumstances that I have raised. The freehold area is known as Willowbank, and he says:

“Willowbank is owned by a company, but that company is owned by the 29 leaseholders. The company has no income and no reserves. It makes no profit and pays no dividend. The two directors are paid neither a salary nor expenses.”

In many respects, Flood Re was there to help people like that. They are principal private occupiers who own their properties that are effectively freehold, but for whatever technical reason they are called leasehold and not covered by the legislation.

The legislation is meant to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, and in Scotland they have tenement blocks. As I understand it, the set-up under Scottish legislation is similar, but the tenement blocks, which are similar to the scenario I have set out, are covered by Flood Re legislation. I genuinely believe that it was not the intention of the legislation or of Parliament to exclude those I have described from Flood Re. I think the goal was to help secure the insurance requirements for people in those circumstances.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I want to come in on the positive aspects of Flood Re. Having grown up in Carlisle, I would also like to say that it was horrific and heartbreaking to see so much of the city knee deep or worse in water. I hope that most people have fully recovered.

More positively, Flood Re has made a real difference to many in my constituency, who have seen reduced premiums, reduced excesses and insurance made available when it was not before. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s reservations, will he commend the Government on taking such positive action and remind them that many businesses are still worried and in need of help?

[John Stevenson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Flood Re has been a success. I have seen that in my constituency, where people now have confidence that their house will be insured. What I am trying to get at is a small group of people. In the setting I mentioned earlier, 29 houses were involved and in another scheme in Carlisle there are, I think, 68, but there will not be many other than those. I suspect that there will not be too many in such circumstances in the flood areas up and down the country, so most people will be able to get the appropriate cover, which, as she rightly says, is a positive.