Inadequate housing, discrimination and rent extortion:
centuries old problems blighting our society
Living conditions and conflicts of interest between private tenants and their landlords in social housing soon after the second world war in Britain.
The austerity and the slow pace of building new housing, plus the flawed legislation in the 1957 Rent Act, together with acute housing shortages and of easy loan financing, enabled the emergence of a breed of rogue businessmen property developers and speculators to flourish and aquire their wealth, buying cheap houses with rent protected sitting tenants in situ and quickly unlawfully evicting them, reselling vacant property at a much higher value, for easy profit, without any development or improvement involved. In these empires of run down inner city tenament block houses, poor tenants in a decontrolled rent environment were regularly forced into paying inflated rents, living in overcrowded bedsitting rooms and were at the mercy of the conscience of a landlord as to the undertaking of any housing repairs being made or even possible threats and unlawful eviction. In these backwaters, the man most infamous as the slum landlord in the West London, North Kensington and Paddington area, to be brought by chance, in 1963, to the public's attention was Perec "Peter" Rachman. There were many others then and after Rachman's death in 1962, difficult to identify, deeply hidden in a complex network of dubious companies, solicitors, estate agents, bogus building societies and all operating in supporting these nefarious activities.
Here is an illustrated history of that era and the continuance of these same problems, under various guises, up to the present times.
Rachman housing, the 1959/1960 years
"Consequences Of Rent Act 1957 And Property Profiteering"
and this opening speech by the leader of the opposition
Mr. Harold Wilson
(Huyton)
I beg to move.
That this House deplores the intolerable extortion, evictions and property profiteering which have resulted from the Rent Act 1957, and demands that Her Majesty's Government take immediate and drastic action to restore security for threatened tenants.
Try as they may to play this matter down, Ministers know that the people of this country have been gravely shocked by what they have read in the national Press and by what they saw in "Panorama" last Monday about the methods of slum landlords in London. I think that it is a commentary on our times and undoubtedly on the myopic complacency of Ministers that it needed a chance reference to Rachman in recent judicial proceedings to bring this record of extortion and fraud into the light.
Sometimes one turns over a stone in a garden or field and sees the slimy creatures which live under its protection. This is what has happened in these past weeks. But the photophobic animal world has nothing to compare with the revolting creatures of London's underworld, living there, shunning the light, growing fat by battening on human misery.
Our purpose today must be to draw the lessons from the facts which are available to us and which have been available to Her Majesty's Government for a very long time. We have to ask how far these conditions result from actions of the House or of the Government, or, for that matter, failure by the Government and by the House to act when action was needed.
Before I do this, I want to say just this: I trust that no words of mine, or of any other hon. Member, will be twisted by persons of evil intent, particularly the Fascist scum which infests parts of London, and used for the purposes of anti-Semitic or any other racial hatred. I trust that we are not to have in this debate, or in the wider debate outside, any attempt to set black against white. Rather let us follow the honourable example of the courageous men and women who form the tenants' protection society in Paddington and who have as a badge a coloured hand grasping a white. Black and white tenants have equally been terrorised and exploited by evil men seeking monetary gain.
Black hooligans have been used against peaceable law-abiding white citizens. Equally, thugs with white skins have been used to procure the eviction of peaceful and law-abiding coloured families. Of course, we know that there are black landlords who exploit their fellow countrymen and white landlords who do the same. We condemn them not as black or white, but as bad landlords. Our job, regardless of prejudice or colour, is to curb their evil powers and to bring them to account.
As I have said, the debate stems from the Rachman disclosures, but the lessons which have to be drawn are not confined to Rachman or to London. The Rachman story is a lurid version of a story which goes on in more sombre, sepia tones in other slum empires and other cities as well as London. Although many of us will be using the word "Rachman" today, we shall be using it more as a convenient form of shorthand, because Rachman was only part of a much wider conspiracy. Indeed, there is growing evidence that he may not have been the controlling figure and that he was one of the "front men" of a much bigger organisation. Whatever his role in the organisation was, there is no doubt the conspiracy is continuing and is still using the same methods.
Summarising the evidence which has appeared in the public Press, and a great deal of other evidence available to my hon. Friends and myself the disease of Rachmanism, if one likes to call it that, can be described in this way. It is to buy controlled properties at low prices and to use every means, legal or illegal, blackmail, or physical violence, to bring about evictions which, under the Rent Act, 1957, have the effect of decontrolling the property so that it can then either be sold to business associates or independent property speculators, or can be let at high rents to people in acute housing need, or still higher rents to prostitutes, because the Rachman property empire was a vice empire, too.
Then, to evade the palsied hand of official control, the loopholes in the Companies Act are used to create a proliferation of interlocking companies so that any action which may be taken—sanitary notices, certificates of disrepair, or the cumbersome machinery of compulsory acquisition—can be frustrated by a total inability to identify the beneficial owner of the property. The machinery that has been used, based on the operation or co-operation of a small number of lawyers and accountants willing at a price or for a share in the gain to pervert their professional ability, was well described in a newspaper yesterday. I could equally well quote from a whole series of cuttings from practically the entire Press, but I will quote from just one Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Times, which is generally regarded as Conservative.
I make no apology for a somewhat lengthy quotation, because if Ministers had been doing their job—and I think that at the Rachman headquarters, if we could ever find them, there must surely be honoured places for portraits of a Macmillan, a Sandys, a Brooke, a Hill and a Joseph—we would long ago have had a ruthless and searching inquiry and a full report available to us. As we do not have that White Paper, I am compelled to read at some length this detailed account from the Sunday Times. It says:
"As with most property concerns"—
I want those words to be noted—
"Rachman operated through an interlocking chain of limited companies, usually with his own nominees as directors. The real control of the companies, however, remained securely with Rachman, because each nominee would be required to provide him with an undated letter of resignation and a 'blank transfer' for the return of any assets vested in the company. (Should one of the parent companies require the return of any property, it was simply a matter of putting a date on the transfer, which would then become binding.)
As Rachman's empire grew, these nominee companies proliferated. In a typical set-up, Company A might have the freehold, Company B the head lease, and there might be subsidiary companies whose sole assets were an under-lease on one house or even of just one self-contained floor. There is little expense involved in setting up these companies—the usual 'retail' price for each is £25, but regular buyers like Rachman could buy companies 'wholesale' at about £19 a time.
All this is fairly standard business procedure in the speculative property world. It was a system that grew up mainly for minimising tax liability, and for greater operating flexibility. But for Rachman it also had two fringe benefits. The raising of finance was sometimes easier, because the scale of borrowing from each company was within the discretionary powers of bank managers and building societies. And it had the effect of concealing ownership—of putting Rachman at a further remove from the sources of his income."
"It was this that for years foiled attempts by local councils and rent tribunals to get at the facts behind rackets in property and clubs.…If a public health notice or certificate of disrepair is to be served, the council's first problem is to find someone to serve it on. They have two possible clues as to the owner: the person who pays the rates, and the name appearing on the tenant's rent book.…This is unlikely to get them beyond the name of the agent."
There is then a long account of the way in which they "fiddle" the agency business.
"The council has power to serve the notice on the agent, but the agent may have no power or money to act until he receives instructions from his client; and he will no doubt refuse to give his client's name. 'It would be quite unethical to reveal such confidences,' the agent says blandly. Prevarication of this type can go on for several weeks.
"Meanwhile, the issue may have been further confused and delayed—though not ultimately avoided—by the immediate owners, Company C, being wound up, their underlease reverting to Company B or being assigned to Company D. 'Look guv,' says the owner of Company D, 'I've only just bought the joint. Give me time.' 'One way or another,' said a colleague of Rachman, 'we reckoned we could keep a defective drain going for four or five months without the legal penalties becoming uneconomic' And by that time they would probably have achieved their original ends—of persuading statutory tenants to leave, or simply playing for time in financial difficulties."
They could keep a defective drain going for four or five months, and a British family with the same inalienable right to a home as any other member of the community, and with full statutory rights guaranteeing security of tenure, could be driven from that home by the intolerable stench of that drain so that Rachman or those behind him could become millionaires.
What did all this mean to the tenants? My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has given the House details over the years of the way in which tenants have been treated in his constituency. He has given these details in the House with about as much impact on the complacency of the Treasury Bench as if he had been describing housing conditions in Nero's Rome.
I can select today only one or two cases from a formidable dossier which has been handed to me—a dossier which will be available to any tribunal of inquiry which the Government will set up which is clothed with adequate powers to uncover the truth and to protect innocent witnesses. Nor, of course, can I say that the dossier to which I am referring is complete, because there are many tenants and many ex-tenants in this country who today are living in fear—in fear for their lives—about coming out with the truth. Let me give one or two examples.
There were two old ladies, sisters, entitled to a peaceful and dignified tenure of their home in which they had lived for many years, but who were forced under duress by one of these landlords to pay two months' rent in advance. When they were pressed for more rent the next month, having already paid it, they were told that the property had been sold—it had been transferred from one subsidiary company to another—and that the new owners had no responsibility for the earlier payment. The payment had been made in cash, with no receipt and no rent book.
When the old ladies hesitated to pay, they were brutally beaten up, and now they live in permanent terror. They will not give evidence on this question. They are afraid, because they fear that knock on the door which Ministers sometimes reserve for their perorations about Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia; and that fear of a knock on the door exists within three miles of this House. That is what happened to these two sisters.
Another woman, aged 64, living with a brother aged 63, was driven out of her home and is now living in North London, and she tells how her rent was not collected, although repeatedly offered, so that she could be evicted. And Rachman's hirelings drove her out. The next case is a man of 52. He happens to be called Mr. Joseph. He has the same rights under our laws as any of his kinsmen. He has gone into hiding this month because he has been terrorised by thugs. His furniture was smashed up as recently as 5th July, after he had refused to move out of his flat.
The previous Tuesday four men arrived with an Alsatian dog and ordered him to leave. A police constable was brought, who rightly told these thugs that they could not evict him without an order of the court. But three days later he came home from work to find that his furniture had been smashed and piled in the corridor outside the flat, and the floorboards ripped up, and he realised the price of refusing to go. He has no redress. He does not know the name of his landlord.
How could Mr. Joseph know the name of his landlord? The property in which he lives has changed hands fifteen times since he moved in eighteen months ago. On 10th July, Mr. Joseph gave an interview to a local newspaper, and as a result of this he was followed by strong arm men and he had to go into hiding. This is in Britain in 1963.
I will give the House only one more reference to what has being going on. I quote now a former member of the staff of this slum empire. He said:
"I was a member of the Heavy Glove Gang"— "We were the men employed to clear unwanted tenants out of houses in the Rachman empire. The gang is still working for Rachman's successors. The method of working hasn't changed. We got paid up to £250 to clear a house of unwanted tenants. Sometimes it is easy. Sometimes hard. Tenants who knew what is good for them usually got out without giving trouble as soon as the Heavy Glove men appeared. Those who don't, get roughed up and chucked into the street, with all their belongings."
He goes on with a long account of their methods:
"At one house in Roseford Terrace, Shepherd's Bush, a girl called Norma Mayers was giving trouble. She was from Barbados and shared a room with another coloured girl. "A few of the boys called on her but she locked them out so they smashed down the door. When they found Norma's sick baby in the house they decided not to throw her out. Instead, they cut off her gas, water and electricity. When Norma called the police, the gang took off. A coloured man, who had nothing to do with the job, was arrested."
He then goes on to say:
"But this girl Norma wasn't scared. She took"— such-and-such a person— "to court and got £50 damages. The court case, however, didn't stop the organisation using the Heavy Glove men. They are still working as hard as ever."
Another man in that organisation said:
"This organisation is real big. They can get anything done. They have big money behind them. I'm hiding from them now. If they catch me they'll string me up."
I could go on with case after case. In some cases, peaceful persuasion—the peaceful persuasion of a padlock on the door, gas, electricity and water all cut off, the humiliation of tearing the lavatory door off its hinges and taking it away, leaving the place open, windows smashed, or the roof made to let in rain. In other cases, physical violence—Alsatian dogs, beatings up, terrorism that I think that most hon. Members genuinely find it almost impossible to credit in a so-called Christian civilised society.
This is the property-owning democracy the people have been cozened into voting for at election after election. We shall be told of course, that it has nothing to do with the Rent Act. One Conservative Sunday newspaper yesterday argued that it was due to control, not to decontrol. If the Minister argues that, we must ask whether he plans any further measures of decontrol. But, of course, these things do stem from the Rent Act. They stem from the creeping decontrol provisions by which any property vacated by the sitting tenant becomes free of rent control, a provision that gives a built-in incentive to unscrupulous landlords, to get tenants out.
Of course, Rachman's was an extreme case, but this evil is still going on in the Rachman or ex-Rachman empire. But there are others who use similar methods to be found in overcrowded districts in London and other big cities: rent collections with no receipts, no rent book, and evictions varying from the more or less peremptory but legal letter from a lawyer to "strong-arm" methods.
In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for example, the pace of evictions has quickened so much in the past few months that the city council there has set up an emergency evictions committee. I was in the North-East at the weekend, and Saturday's edition of the Newcastle evening paper said:
"Some landlords have called in violent strong-arm men to try to terrorise old people out of their homes." The newspaper quoted the city's director of housing, as saying: "These are not fairy tales. We have case histories to substantiate every one of them." He proceeded to give examples of kinds very familiar to those who know the Rachman techniques.
I must refer to certain other issues of public policy. The first is the unscrupulous use of the Companies Act both for tax avoidance—and here we are entitled to call it tax evasion, because it is illegal avoidance of tax—and also even to frustrate the serving of statutory notices. There is nothing new in this use of the Companies Act. In the piece I quoted from the Sunday Times it said that this was the common pattern throughout the property speculators' world and, of course, we raised this, question of the proliferation of companies under the Companies Act in the last Parliament.
During the last election the Jasper case, the Lintang case, broke—right in the middle of the election—causing the ruling party a period of acute embarrassment. Everything we then said about the Jasper case has been justified—the manoeuvring of the Companies Act to get quick, tax-free capital gains by buying and selling blocks of residential property was justified by the findings of Mr. Neville Faulks' Companies Act inquiry.
We took the straightforward, commonsense view that if some people can make a killing of £1 million by an overnight sale of property someone has to pay that £1 million—it does not come from nowhere. It is paid for, of course, by the tenants. Look at the whole record of Dolphin Square; and there have been others. It is going on all the time, sometimes with the cognisance of the big insurance companies.
At the weekend there was an advertisement for a placing with a company whereby a young man, who was clever enough to get into the property market, is to be a quarter-millionaire as a result of getting large loans from an insurance company—and he is getting it from the rents paid by the tenants.
During the election, when the Jasper case broke, we were promised prompt and effective action, even by the Prime Minister himself—he is always more vigorous at election times. We were promised a companies Act inquiry and effective action to follow. To show that he meant business the right hon. Gentleman appointed as President of the Board of Trade, responsible for this, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in this job, has been a dead loss. We had to wait three years for the Report, and the kindest thing we can say of it is that it failed to live up to its own analysis.
In the first paragraph of the Jenkins Report figures were produced to show that the number of new company registrations had doubled from 1955 to 1960–61. The Jenkins Committee went on to accept that the case was proved that most of these were being formed for purposes of tax avoidance or other reasons which have nothing to do with the trade and industry of this country. I think that most commentators have found the proposals they made for amendments to the Companies Act miserably inadequate for the purpose. But, even so, having made the proposals, the Government have failed to propose the legislation. In fact, whoever one blames, be it the Jenkins Committee or the Government—and the responsibility rests with the Government—the promises made at the last election have not been carried out.
Again, I must refer to another common feature between the two cases because the House was warned by the Lintang case. I am referring to the use of unscrupulous building societies controlled by, or linked with, the property racketeer. We all attach too much importance to the good name which the vast majority of building societies have fairly earned to feel happy about some of these cases of a very small minority. I think that it is clear that further legislation is needed, because some of the cases which have been recently reported suggest that the 1960 Act, which was inspired by the Lintang affair, may not have closed all the loopholes.
I think that concern must be expressed about the loans made for property speculation both by banks and insurance companies. A case was mentioned on the Floor of the House last week, again within the Rachman sphere, where both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and a well-known insurance society were taken in by the story about Rachman striking oil in the remote wilds of North Staffordshire. If they are as simple-minded as that, they will fall for the gold brick story next. What I think is more likely is that the Staffordshire valuation was the bait to secure funds for a further extension of Rachman's slum and vice empire in London.
There is another question here. Is it not Government policy to stop insurance company funds and bank loans being used for property speculation? This was announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1961 crisis. On 25th July, at column 227 of Hansard, he said that the banks were being asked to be particularly severe on borrowing applications, for speculative purposes, property development or other speculative services. He went on to say that the Governor of the Bank of England was making a similar request to the British Insurance Association that the insurance companies should observe a similar policy in their lending. Is this still Government policy, or has it been rescinded? If it has been rescinded, have we been told publicly about it, or is the Government's policy in this case, in our view a wise if belated decision, being frustrated?
I think, too, that we must express concern about the behaviour of some members of the legal profession in this business. I suggest that the Law Society must investigate some of these things that have been going on. If it does not, I think that the House will have to do it.
Finally, before I come to the action that we propose to the House, we cannot ignore the clear and insolent record of tax evasion. We are told that Rachman amassed a fortune of several millions without ever having paid a penny Income Tax from the day he arrived in this country to the day he died. The possibility of being able to get away with this is exactly what we have argued year after year from this Box in debates on the Budget and Finance Bills. I remember at the last election, when we talked about tax avoidance, the Prime Minister, with great authority, said that if we tackled tax avoidance we could not save more than £250,000 a year. We could have saved ten times as much on the Rachman profits alone.
What of Rachman's estate at the time of his death? The affidavit says that it was £8,000. We have said often enough that death duties are a voluntary tax, but we have never thought that Income Tax was as voluntary as all that. What has the Revenue been up to in all this business? It is always vigorous enough in pursuing an export manager to include in his assessable income the values of meals or laundry services that he has saved from abroad on export business. The teacher with £1,000 a year and two young children, has no means of evading his payment of £52 a year, or £1 a week, in taxation because it is in Schedule E. The research scientist who earns £1,750 a year has to pay £5 a week under Schedule E, yet these racketeers use services provided by the Board of Trade under the Companies Act and manage to evade every penny of tax they owe.
I doubt whether the full investigation facilities of the Inland Revenue can get at the facts. For one thing, it has no access to Land Registry files. It has no hope of ever tracing the beneficient ownership of these slippery property companies—in any case rents are mostly paid in cash, without records. We shall never know the extent of the illegal salting away of these profits in Switzerland or other countries, despite exchange control, and this is one reason why we said that a full-dress inquiry, covering all aspects of this case, is necessary.
While I am on this, I must ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a full and frank statement on the curiously passive role of the police in this shabby record of gangsterism. Were they always unable to find evidence sufficient to secure a conviction? Will the Minister say what instructions have been given locally, and what instructions have been given by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, on this question? Are they clear and unequivocal? I ask this because I think that we have reached the stage where these issues cannot be regarded as a private quarrel between two private citizens, or between landlord and tenant. We have to recognise that they are a standing threat to the Queen's peace. With all the free money that was involved—I hope that this is true, but we have to ask—can we be sure that there has been no corruption of individual officers? We shall need to be reassured about this whole question.
Finally, I turn to the drastic action for which we have called in our Motion. The Minister, I see, is to move an Amendment which reaches an all-time low in complacency and irrelevance. Of course we agree with the Government that the answer to overcrowding is to build more new houses, but what does the Minister propose in order to get houses built in adequate numbers at rents which the Paddington and Notting Hill tenants can afford? Where is the land coming from? And at what price? The House debated land prices a fortnight ago. The Minister defends his free market in land. If he does, he has no hope of rehousing these evicted or overcrowded tenants or the 4,000 homeless in London whose plight stems largely from Rent Act evictions.
Under the present Government, as is well known, the number of local authority houses built has fallen to little over half the number which Aneurin Bevan achieved in 1948, three years after the war. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any hope in the idea of a free market for houses? The Sunday Express has been given an instruction from its noble proprietor to support the present Prime Minister at all costs, so I acquit it of any Socialist tendencies. A week ago last Sunday it carried a front page lead about the rocketing prices of owner-occupied houses in the London area—a 30 per cent. increase in three years. This is the Rent Act at work, solving all our problems!
But this is not what the Government are to tell us in their Amendment. We are to be told that because of this beneficent 1961 Act local authorities now possess all the powers they need to deal with the property racket. It is true that some vigorous Labour-controlled local authorities have taken action—Birmingham by a process of municipalisation of whole areas, and Newcastle's evictions committee, to which I have referred, is threatening compulsory acquisition wherever it can, and has dealt with some bad cases.
Is the failure in Paddington simply the total inability of a paralytic Conservative-controlled council to deal with the situation? I see the Minister of Housing and Local Government nodding. Now the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Perhaps I might suggest that he move it in a diagonal direction, because it has taken virtually no action. The Minister must know—and this, I think, is the reason for his gyrations—that the power that he has given is totally inadequate.
The Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs has made it clear that it regards the Act as worse than useless in dealing with the worst landlords. In one respect, the Act weakened the power of boroughs by repealing their former powers to prosecute for failure to comply with an order to execute the works needed to make a multi-occupied house suitable for occupation, and substituting default powers instead of the powers of prosecution. But how many councils will take the risk of doing the work at great cost to the ratepayers, when they do not know whether they will ever trace the landlords in order to recover the money?
The Clerk of the Fulham Borough Council, who is also the Clark of the Works Sub-Committee of the London Boroughs Standing Committee, said:
"At present, we are allowed only to sue the man receiving the rents. He might be a man of straw and a council will find itself footing substantial bills out of the ratepayers' pocket. It is this fear that is making London authorities wary in their use of their Housing Act powers."
The switching round of properties from one Rachman subsidiary to another, or one property company subsidiary to another, makes a complete monkey of the Act and of the Minister who stands there and pathetically professes his faith in it, because the 1961 Act, as a means of dealing with the Rachman-type empire in London and other big cities, is as ineffective as a peashooter against a pack of wolves.
The same is true of compulsory acquisition. The Bermondsey Borough Council used it with identifiable landlords whose ideas of rent are a bit over rapacious, but, again, there is the problem of finding the owner. This is an extract from Hansard, I7th June, 1952:
"Lieut.-Colonel Lipton asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government"— that is, the present Prime Minister—
"what steps he will take to ensure that the correct name? and addresses of property owners are recorded with local rating authorities."
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"I do not think that any steps are called for on my part."
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1962; Vol. 502, c. 977.]
Now I will tell the Minister of Housing and Local Government what we consider to be essential. He could have taken very short, sharp action on this. I think that full justice would have been met in this case if he had taken over the whole of the properties in this empire, and I think that it would have been quite fair if the compensation paid for it had been based on tax returns made by these companies. After all, we always believe in fair compensation; and that would be fair. What I suggest to him is that he should introduce a Bill now—and we will grant every facilities to get it through before the Recess, even after ten o'clock at night—to give powers to take over all the rented property in these zones of dubious ownership, wherever extortion and exploitation is the order of the day and wherever statutory notices are ignored. The failure of the existing legislation—I put this quite seriously to the right hon. Gentleman—is that it is directed against an individual—and an individual who can defy it by concealing his identity or transferring his property.
The powers should be directed not at the individual, but at the property. Just as an Admiralty marshal can nail a writ of attachment to the mast of a ship, after which it is illegal to move it—and then the legal argument can begin—so the acquisition notice should be nailed on the door of the house. From that moment the house is the property of the local authority and it alone can collect the rent. Once this is done, any legitimate landlord—there may be some and still are some in these areas—can come forward and make his claim by due legal process. But the racketeer will be faced with a rather difficult choice, either of identifying himself and discharging his responsibilities in connection with a statutory disrepair, or sanitary, or overcrowding notice, or of remaining in his hide-out, in which case he sacrifices his rent income.
So let the Government introduce this legislation forthwith, and we will join with them in making it law. And let them see that the powers are put into immediate effect after the Royal Assent.
Then again, I think that there is a strong case, although this is not so immediately urgent, for legislation in the near future requiring full registration of all rented property with full details of the beneficial ownership and the rents charged, the sanction for failing to register being requisitioned by the local authority. This would prevent the degeneration of other properties into the hands of racketeers, and the information given would be of inestimable value to the Inland Revenue. Legislation on the Companies Act and on capital gains are the duty of other Ministers, but none the less urgent for that.
The Rent Act. I repeat where we stand. We shall repeal the 1957 Act and replace it by a Bill which restores full security of tenure to the tenant, which establishes rent tribunals to fix rents when they are appealed to by either the tenant or the landlord, on the basis not of arbitrary local decisions, still less on strong arm methods, but on decisions of this House on what constitutes a reasonable rent in relation to the rateable value, and, of course, to the conditions and amenities of the house.
On the question of bringing up the conditions of old houses to adequate standards, we published our proposals very recently, and I think that the Minister has seen them and even commented on them.
The issue that we are debating today goes far beyond the sleazy slum empires of London and other cities. One major reason for the overcrowding which evil men can exploit is the sheer breakdown of Government planning, because the overcrowding in London, which is the main cause, has gone on and developed pari passu with vast and costly office-building programmes for speculative purposes. These have not only added to the congestion in Central London and acted as a magnet for still more employees coming into London requiring housing, but they have also pre-empted urgently needed building resources, including the scarcest of all resources—land—from the housing programme.
Equally, the effects of the Rent Act cannot be measured and cannot be dismissed in terms of gangsterism. It will not be enough to say, "These are evil men. How we deplore them." Respectable property companies which are operating within the law—the law which hon. Members opposite made—have brought untold hardship to hundreds of thousands. This is not a problem of the slums and the twilight zones. I have received hundreds of letters during the last three or four days since it was announced that this debate was to take place. Hon. Members might be surprised; or perhaps they might not be surprised. Many have come from the Finchleys, the Hampsteads and the Richmonds, and much further afield.
I will quote only one:
"Twenty-three years in one flat. Pre-rent Act rent £72 a year, including rates. Now rising at the end of this year to £375, plus rates of £60, plus water rate. In other words, a rise from £72 to £440, more than six fold increase."
We have all seen the figures of the properties and dividends of the big property companies, but where, in the London area, are people dispossessed from their homes by inability to pay these high rents to go; and why should they go? What this debate shows is that private landlordism has failed. This is why we say: repeal the Rent Act and replace it with a Measure fairer to the tenant. Strengthen the measures needed to enable houses to be built for sale to owner-occupiers, and this means firm action on interest rates and still firmer action on land prices.
Finally, let it be recognised that for the great number of people living in overcrowded conditions and slums the answer must be rented houses, but houses worthy of our people in this age—not the conditions I have been talking of— houses built to let at rents which ordinary families can afford. That is why this problem will never be solved on the basis of speculative gains and private profit. Slums and overcrowding can only be solved by a housing policy which, in its inspiration, its administration and its humanity reflects the spirit of social purpose.
I move the focus forward almost 59 years later, after that powerful speech from Harold Wilson. It appears nothing practical has been learned during that long period in the to and fro games of the party political power see-saw.
Just look at the same issues, currently cropping up for debate for action in this Parliament.
"Private Rental Market
Insecurity in the private rental market":
debated on Friday 14th January 2022
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I called for this debate, and was successful thanks to the Speaker’s office, following the recent shocking treatment of a group of residents in my constituency by their landlord, which brought insecurities in the private rented sector into sharp focus. In November last year, I was contacted by several residents living in a block of flats in Hornsey and Wood Green. After their building was sold to a new landlord, they received either section 21 notices to evict them or section 13 notices saying that their rent was set to soar by an eye-watering 30% to 40%.
Those tenants included families who had lived there for decades and they were understandably devastated at the thought of losing their homes. Like me, they could not understand how an increase on that scale could ever be justified or how a landlord could kick out reliable long-standing tenants for no reason in the middle of a pandemic.
I am pleased to say that, following weeks of representations by my office to the new owners, the threat of adverse publicity in our local campaigning newspaper and the help of the charity Shelter and local Hornsey Labour councillors, I learned this week that the new owners had rescinded some of those notices and offered tenants new contracts on more favourable terms. Although that is welcome news for most residents, sadly, for some of them, the landlord’s change of heart two months after the notices were dispatched has come much too late.
This example highlights the huge power imbalance between private landlords and their tenants, which is currently upheld by existing housing legislation. That is why I am urging the Government to end section 21 notices, as they committed in their 2019 general election manifesto. I am asking the Minister to provide an answer today on when the renters’ reform Bill, promised in the Queen’s Speech, will be introduced.
In that block of flats in my constituency, seven households were issued with section 21 notices, which enable private landlords to repossess their properties from assured shorthold tenants without having to establish fault on the part of the tenant. Such measures are sometimes informally referred to as no-fault evictions. Many of those householders have lived in their flats for several years, in some cases decades, and are raising their families there.
One family who were issued with a section 21 notice have been renting their flat since 1991. They raised their daughter there and, now in their 60s, cannot afford a mortgage, because in that period, as the Minister will understand, the average price of a property in a place such as Hornsey and Wood Green has sky-rocketed. After the family challenged their landlord over the notice, they were told that their only other option was to accept a 40% rent increase.
Another resident whose family were issued with a section 21 notice after living in their flat for five years explained that his family had been left in an extremely difficult and precarious situation. To make matters worse, those notices were issued in mid-November, with section 21 notice recipients expected to find a new home and move over the Christmas period in the midst of a global pandemic. When challenged on that, the new managing agent for the block said that there was no good time to serve a section 21 notice. He is right, but there are some very bad times, and that was one of them.
Many other tenants in the blocks were issued with section 13 notices of rent rises of up to 40% with as little as four weeks’ notice. One of those residents explained to me that when she moved into her flat as a single parent, she enjoyed the sense of community in the block, which is home to a number of families. The landlord’s aggressive move to increase her rent by 30% to £2,000 per calendar month for a two-bedroom flat in Hornsey would have made it impossible for her to pay.
The only recourse available to those who receive section 13 notices is to refer them to a tribunal. However, this process can be lengthy, complex, time-consuming and a waste of public funds, particularly for those struggling to access expert advice. Moreover, there is nothing to stop landlords subsequently issuing a section 21 notice if the tribunal decision does not go in their favour. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who has worked with tenants and landlords to develop a new and fairer tenancy model—the London model—has called on the Government to reform court processes to make it easier for renters to challenge rent increases and eviction notices. He wholeheartedly supports this Adjournment debate.
Particularly given the Tory household budget crisis, it is an injustice that any landlord should be able to behave in this way. When I contacted Shelter for advice, I was told there is nothing to prevent private owners deciding to take possession on a large scale like this, even during a global pandemic and on the eve of Christmas.
Living with that level of uncertainty can be detrimental to the wellbeing of our community. Shelter’s survey of private renters in 2021 found that 39% said their housing problems or worries left them feeling stressed and anxious, and many parents have reported to Shelter that the insecurity of renting makes it harder for their children to settle. Living in homes on short, fixed-term contracts with the threat of eviction or a looming unaffordable rent hike makes planning for the future extremely difficult. Frequent moves are not only expensive but disruptive to employment and children’s education.
Living in constant fear of eviction also makes renters less likely to report disrepair problems, which is an issue I see all too frequently in my constituency, where 17,000 households are privately renting. Shockingly, a quarter of privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard, with 14% having a category 1 hazard that poses a very significant safety concern.
Although there are some actions the local authority can take to ensure landlords address the most serious disrepair, Citizens Advice found that private renters who make a formal complaint to their local authority have a 46% chance of being served with an eviction notice within six months, which is a severe deterrent to reporting disrepair to the local authority.
Eleven million people, including 1 million children, are now living in rented accommodation. In the past this was just a short-term option before one purchased a home or before one was able to get on a housing list. Now, with 11 million people living in privately rented accommodation in the UK, this has become an urgent issue. The number is expected to grow in the coming years, with 40% of London’s households expected to be living in the private rented sector by 2025. This is no way for the city’s inhabitants to live.
The last piece of comprehensive legislation affecting the private rented sector was introduced in 1988, when the number was far lower. With a growing number of people affected across the country, the Government need to act urgently. First, when will the renters’ reform Bill be brought to the House? Secondly, when will the Government live up to their promise to build more genuinely affordable homes? By that I mean homes with rent at the level of council rents so that people can afford to save while renting and can get on to the housing ladder if they wish to do so later.
Everyone has the right to a safe and secure home. It is shameful that, three years after promising to end no-fault evictions, renters such as my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green are still living with the fear of being made homeless by their landlord due to this Government’s failure to act. I urge the Minister to address these concerns, which are shared by so many in my constituency, across London and across the UK—11 million people are affected in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing this important debate on insecurity in the private rental market. In a country as great as ours, it should be a basic human right that people, regardless of whether they are home owners, leaseholders or tenants, feel safe and secure in their own home.
The hon. Lady touched on a number of issues that I am sure are familiar not just to me and my constituents but to Members and constituents across the country. As she rightly pointed out, the private rented sector is the second largest housing tenure in the country—11 million people are housed in that way. In fact, 19% of people in the country live in the private rented sector. It is also housing the most diverse range of people these days. People living in the private rented sector are often older now and families rather than single people.
Although it is the sector that continues to play a central role in providing housing across the country, it is the housing market that has undoubtedly left thousands of tenants feeling insecure and unprotected. However, this does not need to be the case and it should not be the case. We, the Government, want to shift the odds in favour of renters and deliver a better deal for them.
People across the country should be able to expect that, when they are signing up to a rental agreement, they will be protected from wrongdoing. There is still much to do for us to reach that point, but the action that we are taking will improve the lives of people right across the country.
As I stand here today, unfortunately, and as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, millions of responsible tenants are living in homes in the knowledge that they could be uprooted at a moment’s notice and with minimal justification. That is not peace of mind; that is simply wrong. To give people the confidence they need to be able to plan for the future, we are stepping up with the biggest change in legislation for the private rented sector for a generation by abolishing no-fault evictions—section 21s as they are more formally known. This is the centrepiece of our plans to raise standards across the whole of the private rented sector and reflects our determination to drive out rogue and unscrupulous landlords. Our reforms will deliver a fairer, more effective rental market and, later this year, we will publish the White Paper that sets out the blueprint for the whole sector. I appreciate completely that the hon. Lady is very keen for us to progress, but it is important, given this once-in-a-generation change, that we make sure that we have consulted widely with people from across the sector to ensure that we get it right.
In the meantime, the hon. Lady can be assured that we are not resting on our laurels. We are engaging with the widest possible range of voices, including stakeholders and organisations from across the sector. As much as we sometimes like to pretend, politicians do not always have the answers. Hearing and listening to these views would not only ensure that the White Paper and future legislation actually address the challenges that exist, but help to create a system that works for everyone.
As part of a range of actions to address the urgent and pressing needs of the generational pandemic that has arrived on our shores, we acted to keep renters safe in their homes. We banned bailiff evictions, extended notice periods, and provided unprecedented financial support to people and businesses. These measures worked: fewer households were assessed as homeless; there are fewer rough sleepers today; and fewer possession claims are now being made in the courts. We will make sure that build back better is more than a slogan. As we recover from the pandemic, it is right that we do everything we can to improve the security of tenants in the private rented sector and learn the precious lessons from the interventions that we adopted to make sure that we deliver greater protection for tenants and empower them to hold their landlord to account.
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of no-fault evictions. Currently, landlords can evict tenants with as little as two months’ notice once their fixed-term contract has come to an end without even needing to give a reason. The practical implication of this unjust situation is that the tenant can find themselves living with the worry that they may be evicted at the click of a finger. Other tenants continue to endure poor standards for fear that they will asked to leave if they complain about the problems in their home, as the hon. Lady pointed out. That is why the Government are committed to abolishing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. No longer will tenants find that their landlord is evicting them on a whim with no reason given as to why they have to relocate their lives or disrupt their children’s education. In the future, landlords will always have to provide a specific reason for ending a tenancy, such as breach of contract or waiting to sell the property. It will also help to end revenge evictions where landlords may evict tenants who rightly complain about poor standards, as raised by the hon. Lady. It will protect tenants from having to make frequent and short-notice moves, and will enable them to put down roots and plan for the future.
In 2019, we consulted the public on our proposed reforms to the tenancy framework and how we should take it forward. About 20,000 people gave us their views, and we are listening. While we continue to drive forward work on sector reform, we also recognise that affordability concerns can cause insecurity for renters, and we are committed to tackling that.
It is unfortunate to hear of issues that constituents have raised about rent hikes. Under the existing legislative framework, private sector landlords can increase the rent in two main ways. First, during the fixed-term period any rental increases are set out in the tenancy agreement, allowing landlords and tenants to agree arrangements that suit their circumstances. Secondly, once the fixed-term has ended—and if the agreement transitions to a statutory periodic tenancy—a landlord is able to adjust the rent once a year under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. The landlord must serve a notice to the tenant informing them of the proposed change. If the tenant does not agree with the landlord’s intention, they can refer the matter to the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal for independent adjudication. The tribunal will consider the application and decide what the maximum rent of that property should be if let on the open market, considering, obviously, the conditions of the local housing market. Tenants may also have a rent review clause in their contract.
We are clear about the fact that it is for landlords and tenants to agree the amount of rent that should be charged at the outset of a tenancy, but the Government are keen to avoid any unintended negative consequences related to abolishing section 21. As part of that, we are determined that there should not be any mechanism for landlords to force a tenant to leave a property by including clauses in tenancy agreements which hike up the rent by excessive or unreasonable amounts just before the agreements are due to expire.
While three quarters of private renters found it easy to afford their rent, we understand that affordability may be an issue for some, and that they may require additional support. For tenants who are unable to afford their rental payments, a range of support is available through the welfare system, alongside the unprecedented financial package helping renters to afford their housing costs during the pandemic. That has meant that, even given associated pressures of covid-19, the vast majority of renters—93%—are up to date with their rent. That shows that the comprehensive package of support provided by the Government is preventing widespread rent arrears as a result of covid-19.
I hope we can all recognise that the Government are steadfast in their commitment to building a private rented sector that works for everyone: a sector that introduces a better deal for renters, and improves the lives of people across the country. Ours is a Government who are pursuing reforms that will ensure that good landlords can flourish and continue to provide the homes that the country needs, but it is also a Government who are protecting tenants from sharp practice and removing criminal landlords from the sector, and are building back better from the pandemic. We are committed to rebalancing the relationship between tenants and landlords to deliver a fairer, more secure and more desirable private rented sector. While that will not happen overnight, it will happen. We get it: we understand the challenges that exist in the sector, and we are open to dealing with them. That is why it is so important that we continue to drive through our reforms to ensure that we deliver on our aims.
We are aware that we need the support of the entire private rented sector if we are to achieve these goals. It is in that spirit that I again thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and assure her that I intend to continue to drive through the Government’s ambitious agenda of reform in the sector.
More than a month later and the housing issues were again brought to the attention of Parliament.
"Housing Disrepair"
debated on Friday 25th February 2022
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I will speak this afternoon about the truly terrible housing conditions that have been endured for too long by the residents of Evelyn Court on Amherst Road in my constituency. This block is run and managed by the Industrial Dwellings Society housing association. One can see that it would have once been a very nice estate and a pleasant place to live, but when I visited it several times recently and residents kindly invited me into their flats, I was shocked by what I saw. Let me say straightaway that the tenants of all the flats I visited had made every effort to keep them nicely, which made it even more heartbreaking that their flats were disfigured by chronic disrepair problems that were not in their power to deal with and about which the Industrial Dwellings Society housing association had let them down time after time when it had promised to fix things. I saw dreadful mould covering walls, damp, water leaking in and dampness rising from the floor. In addition, tenants told me about blockages in their drainage system and insect infestations. Among the insects that they had had to deal with in large numbers were ants, spiders and slugs. Worst of all were the health problems that the tenants and their children were enduring because of the damp and mould. I was told about nausea, coughs, colds and chronic asthma. The conditions in Evelyn Court are completely unacceptable and the Industrial Dwellings Society should be ashamed of itself for leaving its tenants in that state.
The Industrial Dwellings Society was set up in 1885 by a group of Jewish philanthropists and businessmen who wanted to relieve overcrowding in the east end of London. If they could see the dreadful conditions that, in 2022, their organisation is housing eastenders in, they would be shocked. Those problems are not confined to Evelyn Court, however: the private sector as a whole has the worst housing disrepair and more than 1.1 million homes in the sector—fully one quarter—do not meet the decent homes standard.
I also deal with terrible housing disrepair problems elsewhere in the public sector. Among the cases that I am currently dealing with is an L&Q housing association tenant who is suffering from a leaking roof, rising damp, slugs, an infestation of drain flies, continually blocked drains, sewage spilling out into the garden and emerging from the sink, and a shower that has been broken for three years. Another L&Q tenant who I and my staff are trying to help is living in a flat with no working toilet, no gas, a leaking roof and an insect infestation. We are also trying to help a Hackney Council tenant who has been without gas and hot water since 15 December and whose bathroom is in a state of disrepair. A further Hackney Council tenant is in a property with severe mould and raw sewage outside her flat from a drain that has been blocked for six months. That is just a sample of the scores of new housing disrepair cases that I deal with every month.
The Minister must be wondering why housing disrepair is so endemic. There are several reasons. There is a lack of funding from the Government generally and they, quite correctly, put the responsibility for fire safety and net zero carbon emissions on to housing associations. I support those policies and that is the right thing to do, but they fail to fund those issues properly. It would take £15 billion to deal with fire safety issues in London alone.
Another issue is that housing associations—many of them, such as the Industrial Dwellings Society, set up more than a century ago with every intention of helping local people—no longer have a strong local presence. Tenants who need repairs often have to contact call centres situated far away in cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool. The people in these call centres do not know the estate or the individuals, and they often cannot grasp the problems they are trying to explain. The regulators, including the Regulator of Social Housing and the housing ombudsman, are the Government’s responsibility, but they do not have sufficient powers. They can only deal with the process, not individual cases, and they are not able to impose fines big enough to be a real deterrent.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised a White Paper on this sector in autumn 2021, and it has still not appeared—it is now promised for 2022. Will the Minister commit the Government to producing the White Paper on this important sector in 2022? The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires private sector landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of a tenancy and throughout. Bearing in mind that 1.1 million homes in the private sector do not meet the decent homes standard, how many cases have been brought under this Act? How many of those cases have been successful? Finally, how much money has been allocated to local authorities to enforce the decent homes standards?
I would not like to conclude this speech without applauding the London Renters Union, which has given so much support to the tenants of Evelyn Court. Furthermore, the London Renters Union, across London, has not only helped tenants but empowered them. The tenants of Evelyn Court are not asking for the world. They want the Industrial Dwellings Society to keep its promise of a 24-hour call out, they want it to communicate with them properly and, above all, they want it to do something permanent about the terrible disrepair in Evelyn Court.
As a Member of Parliament for more than 30 years, one of the biggest parts of my case load is housing and housing disrepair. I cannot stress enough to Ministers the misery, depression and anxiety that long-running housing disrepair causes to tenants. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that tenants have disrepair addressed according to existing legislation and according to the needs of tenants. If the Government cannot meet the needs of tenants in these dreadful conditions, how much do they really care about tenants? I ask the Minister to look into the issues I have raised and to take action for the tenants of Evelyn Court.
Monday 7th March 1966
Battle of the busts hits taxmen
A new tax is to be introduced on those extra inches of the schoolgirl with the fuller figure. That is the way mothers of teenaged daughters see a switch in Customs and Excise regulations. And they consider it an affront.
Customs & Excise is the government department, which administers purchase tax and other indirect taxes. The "tax on busts" comes into force on July 1st 1966. From then, schoolgirls' uniform clothing will no longer be exempt from a 10 percent purchase-tax charge if it is above certain measurements.
Since the plan was announced, buxom schoolgirls' figure statistics have suddenly become vital. And already protests have been made to Mr. Douglas Jay M.P., President of the Board of Trade. The limits laid down by the Customs and Excise are 32-inch bust for dresses, and 42-inch for overcoats, raincoats and jackets. The move is intended to prevent the woman with the daintier figure cashing in by wearing schoolgirl clothing.
The battle of the bust began when a complaint was sent to Mr. Roy Hattersley, M.P. for the Sparkbrook constituency, Birmingham, by Mrs. Joyce White, secretary of the parent-teacher association at Birmingham's Harrison Barrow Grammar School for Girls, Acocks Green. Mr. Hattersley then referred the complaint to the President of the Board of Trade. Mrs. White, said: "Little girls get bigger every day - but someone seems to have overlooked the fact." "The suppliers of the dresses said they had protested about the regulations which mean that purchase tax applies to all dresses with more than 32-inch chest measurements." "It appears that as the school dresses are fully cut, purchase tax will apply this year to most sizes. It adds about 6s. to a £3 dress." She claims that a 32-inch dress would fit very few girls over eleven.
The school uniforms tax controversy rumbled on, reaching Parliament, in the House of Commons sitting;
on 17th May 1966 NATIONAL FINANCE Written answers; Purchase Tax (School Uniforms)
Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Conservative)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has extended 10 per cent. Purchase Tax to all school uniforms.
Mr. Niall MacDermot (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. There has been no such extension of the tax.
and further on in Parliament, the House of Commons sitting;
on 12th July 1966 NATIONAL FINANCE debate Oral answers to questions; School Uniforms (Tax)
Question 15.
Dr. Michael Winstanley (Liberal)
rose to stand—
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Purchase Tax regulations so that all school uniforms are exempted and not merely those below a certain size.
Mr. Niall MacDermot (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
No, Sir. This would be impracticable.
Dr. Winstanley
Is the Financial Secretary satisfied with a system which discriminates between schoolgirls purely on the basis of bust measurement? Does he think it right, for example, that a miniskirt for an adult should be exempt from Purchase Tax whereas a gym slip for a well developed schoolgirl should not?
Mr. MacDermot
With changes in fashion, limitations merely by length of clothing become a somewhat inadequate test of what is suitable clothing for young children.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Labour)
Does not my hon. and learned Friend think it ridiculous that whether or not Purchase Tax is paid on ? a girl's school uniform depends on whether she is a late developer or an early developer?
Mr. MacDermot
I take the point. It has proved difficult ever since the test was first introduced in 1940 to draw a satisfactory dividing line. What we do is to keep in close consultation with the trade and try to apply generous limits when dealing with articles which clearly are school uniforms.
Several Hon. Members
all rose to stand—
Mr. Speaker
Order. We had better move on...
That very brief exchange was the only known parliamentary debate on the subject at that time. It is now well over 50 years later and the politicians, still have not achieved anything but add further nonsense and overly complex tax rules instead of properly resolving this issue...
As children across the UK are looking towards the new school year, many families are facing hefty bills for compulsory school uniforms. For older children - or those who are taller than average - school uniforms, as well as all other clothing and shoes, attract the full standard VAT rate of 20%.
To summarise why these families are paying more and why successive governments haven't acted.
Clothing and shoes for young children have been charged a zero rate of VAT since the introduction of the tax on 1st April 1973. Initially it had not been proposed that these supplies should be zero-rated, although young children’s clothing was relieved of purchase tax which VAT replaced. In his Budget statement on 6th March 1973 the then Chancellor Anthony Barber announced that both children’s footwear and clothing would be zero-rated, although the criteria for assessing whether items were tax-free would have to be more restrictive, to prevent the kind of abuse to which purchase tax was subject:
At the time of the 1973 Budget, the Customs & Excise department also published guidance (Notice 714) on whether clothes and footwear would meet the two tests for zero rating: that articles were both designed for young children (the design test), and suitable only for young children (the suitability test); in a press notice to accompany this, Customs gave details of how zero-rating would differ from the old relief from purchase tax:
As under purchase tax, the basic criteria for determining the scope of the relief will be a set of measurements for clothing. The zero-rate will apply to broadly to the same items as the purchase tax relief, but in particular the manufacturing and design tolerances which were incorporated in the measurements of garments have in certain cases been reduced. The relief will also apply to certain items which were taxed under purchase tax eg, ties and school caps. In addition, however, the new scheme specifically excludes from the zero rate clothing for older persons; and clothing which is sold by retailers (and in departments and sections of shops) catering exclusively for adults will thus be taxable, irrespective of size.
What are the current rules?
Clothing and shoes for young children have been charged a zero rate of VAT ever since the introduction of the tax. The problem is that there is no definition of the term "young children" in VAT law. Instead, the VAT relief is based on the maximum size an average child will be on their 14th birthday. So clothes for older children, as well as many children under the age of 14 who are larger than average, are taxed at 20%. And this includes school uniform.
Exceptions to the rules.
6.1 Uniforms for school and children’s organisations
There is no specific relief for items of school uniform, they’re subject to the normal rules for children’s clothes. However, if you supply garments under a specific agreement with a school which is exclusively for pupils under 14 years of age you may be able to apply the zero rate beyond the garment measurements as tabled in paragraph 4.2. of the rules (see government HMRC website)
The garments must be unique to that school by design, such as a prominent badge or piping in school colours, and held out for sale as being for that school only. If these conditions are met, you may apply the zero rate irrespective of garment size. The same principles apply to clothing items which form the uniform of other children’s organisations catering exclusively for the under 14s, such as Beavers and Brownies. Zero rating does not apply to items which may also be worn by older groups such as Scouts.
These may be zero-rated irrespective of size provided they’re:
•designed exclusively for the organisation
•worn only by under 14s
Why doesn't the government cut the rate?
The policy would be very popular with parents, and it has been considered in the past, but it has never been taken up.
Way back in 1980, HM Customs & Excise considered the possibility of scrapping VAT on school uniforms, but concluded that the zero rate, aimed at children, would be exploited by adults in the larger sizes. After all, the uniform in a great number of secondary schools includes plain trousers, skirts and shirts - items that adults could wear too.
There were proposals that elements of school uniform clearly identified as being from a particular school, by a logo for example, could be made exempt from VAT. In 1997, the MP Tim Loughton proposed that such a policy could be policed by the production of a school identification card, or the uniform could be ordered through the school. But the government of the time did not support it.
Other MPs have raised the issue since then, but the government policy continues very little changed. Any future decisions on VAT would be taken by the chancellor as part of the normal Budget process, with VAT raising funding for public services including education. For now, it seems unlikely that any change in policy would be on the cards.
On the 29th April 2021, Nick Gibb MP, a minister at the Department for Education published a new law passed by Parliament that will require schools to follow Government statutory guidance on school uniform costs.
The Act, which has received Royal Assent, was introduced as a Private Members’ Bill by Mike Amesbury MP, has cross-party support which recognises the costs parents face for school uniform, particularly for branded items, and the statutory guidance will tell schools to consider high street alternatives. It will also include measures on encouraging second-hand uniform, schools’ arrangements with suppliers, and ensuring parents have access to clear information about uniform policies.
The Department will publish the statutory guidance in the autumn this year, which will focus on ensuring costs are reasonable for families of all backgrounds and giving parents the best value for money. It will also advise schools to make sure that when they take up contracts with uniform suppliers, they are competitive and transparent in order to keep costs down. However, school uniform kit remains subject to VAT rules.
30th August 2021. The new law aimed at making school uniforms cheaper in England and Wales will not be in place in time for the September start of this school year. Headteachers are waiting for the new statutory guidance on uniforms. The government says schools should expect full details in the autumn.
Parents will not benefit from the changes as schools go back this September. Mike Amesbury, the Labour MP who first introduced the legislation, said he would be "incredibly disappointed" if any further delays to the guidance meant that the changes weren't fully in force for the start of the next academic year, beginning in September 2022. He added that hundreds of thousands of children, parents and campaigners would be equally upset. They will now have to wait and hope that the law is finalised before the next academic year begins to see the reality of those cash savings.
Currently, the issue of incorrect uniforms affects secondary school pupils in particular, with some schools sanctioning them or even sending them home if they arrive wearing clothing that is not on their school uniform kit list.
19th November 2021. The government has published the new statutory guidance on uniforms aimed at making school uniforms cheaper to buy in England and Wales. Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi said the legally binding guidelines would make uniforms "far more affordable".
There is still no sign of the government allowing zero rating VAT on all school uniform kit.
Parents in England must be allowed to buy some uniform from High Street shops as well as school suppliers, according to new government rules. Second-hand items should be made available and the cost of anything branded must be kept to a minimum. The move has been welcomed by education unions - but child poverty campaigners say more action is needed.
From next autumn, items with logos should be kept to a minimum and more uniform from any shop, such as supermarkets, should be allowed. Schools are also being asked to make sure second-hand uniforms are available as an affordable and sustainable option.
Matt Easter, who co-chairs the Schoolwear Association industry body, welcomed the statutory guidance, which he said would help ensure "parents get good value for money" without placing "unreasonable burdens on schools or uniform suppliers". "Importantly, it reinforces that the majority of schools are already doing the right thing and, in most cases, will already be fully, or almost, compliant," he said.
Association of School and College Leaders general secretary Geoff Barton also welcomed the statutory guidance but added: "Schools already follow the government's non-statutory guidance on school uniform. "Schools are acutely aware of the need to keep uniform costs to a minimum, particularly as they often have many students who come from disadvantaged homes. "They deal on a daily basis with the impact of the high level of child poverty the government has failed to address."
Child Poverty Action Group chief executive Alison Garnham said the guidance was "just the first step", schools needed to "develop approaches that support all families" and the government should fund local authorities in England to provide clothing grants for parents on low incomes. "We know that parents struggle with the cost of school uniform and that kids are excluded from activities for not having the right kit," Ms Garnham said. "No parent should have to go into debt to buy school uniform. "No child should be priced out of participation at school."
BACK TO THE FUTURE...
Cannabis: What is all the fuss and bother about?
(edited source written material, thanks to the Wootton Report and the EMCDDA, Lisbon)
Documented in Parliament Hansard copy 6th April 1967
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
Order for Second reading extract quote:
Quintin Hogg: Conservative MP (St. Marylebone) the Shadow Home Secretary stood up and said;
"I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in winding up, will say that he will not be lured by "pop" singers or stars who write to The Times about letting up on cannabis. I hope that he and the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend will pursue the addicts of hashish or pot, or marijuana, or whatever it is called, with the utmost severity that the law allows. I hope that they will find themselves in the Old Bailey, and, however distinguished their pop position in the Top Ten may be, that they will be treated by the judges at the Old Bailey as criminals deserve to be treated, and I hope that there will be no mercy shown them at all."
Cannabis use by students at Oxford University in early 1967 led the Vice-Chancellor to write to the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, asking for a national inquiry into cannabis and Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (L.S.D.). A body was then set up to investigate and report on the situation of drugs and the laws surrounding the issues. The report was the work of the Home Office Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. Baroness Barbara Wootton of Abinger chaired its Hallucinogens Sub-Committee.
In 1967, when the Hallucinogens Sub-Committee began its work, there were well-publicised drug charges against Keith Richards and Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. Jagger’s arrest and imprisonment for possessing four Italian amphetamine pills gave rise to a famous editorial in The Times, ‘Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel?’ which compared his offence with the act of an Archbishop of Canterbury who purchased four proprietary airsickness pills at Rome airport after visiting the Pope: the two offences carried exactly the same legal status. In May 1967, the Beatles released their psychedelically-charged ‘Sergeant Pepper’ LP record with a cover photo montage that included a display of small pot plants suggesting cannabis was present and the summer saw the ‘Legalise Pot Rally’ in Hyde Park with poets Allen Ginsburg and Adrian Mitchell, legal rights campaigner Caroline Coon, and Black rights activist Stokely Carmichael, among others. The organisation ‘Release’ was founded in that summer of 1967 by Coon, then a twenty two-year-old fine art student, and her artist friend, Rufus Harris, and run as the world’s first free twenty-four-hour drugs and legal advice telephone line, initialy from Coon’s basement flat in Shepherd's Bush, West London. Release published 'The Release Report: On Drug Offenders and the Law' on 23rd April 1969, concerning police actions of harassment in relation to drugs.
The Sub-Committee held seventeen meetings, examined a huge body of evidence and commissioned a review of the international clinical literature by the renowned psychiatrist, Sir Aubrey Lewis. Their general conclusions were straightforward: ‘There is no evidence that in Western society serious physical dangers are directly associated with the smoking of cannabis’; ‘It can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis use does not lead to heroin addiction’; ‘We believe that the association of cannabis in legislation with heroin and the other opiates is entirely inappropriate … the present penalties for possession and supply are altogether too high’; ‘All in all, it is impossible to make out a firm case against cannabis as being potentially a greater personal or social danger than alcohol’. These conclusions were substantially in line with the most comprehensive previous attempt to come to grips with the effects of cannabis: the seven-volume Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, which was produced in 1894 by four British and three Indian men, based on the testimony of 1,193 witnesses.
It was from the second half of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, Cannabis had been medical case researched, experimented with and used in many proprietary medicinal preparations sold to the British public and in the colonies. The most well known uses being in tinctures, cough syrups, ointments, balms, sedative tonics, cigarettes and corn plasters.
 |
| Kentish Gazette 1872 |
 |
| Indian cigarettes Cannabis Indica |
 |
| Corn plaster ad 1887 |
 |
| Poster ad |
 |
| Grimault Indian cigarettes case |
The International Times October 27th - November 11th 1967 Issue 20
Used in hospitals, as a medicine for treatment of certain patient's conditions, 'Tincture of Cannabis' was a commercial product that was prepared from cannabis sativa grown in India & Pakistan and imported into the UK. William Ransom and Son was established in 1846 in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, and produced extracts of cannabis for pharmaceutical use until prohibited by law in 1973.
The main recommendations of the Wootton Report on Cannabis were that possession of a small amount should not normally land the possessor in prison; and that maximum penalties for possession, sale or supply should be lowered on conviction in a Magistrates’ Court to a fine of not more than £100, or imprisonment for not more than four months, or both; on conviction on indictment, these penalties should be an unlimited fine or prison for not more than two years, or both. The Sub-Committee did not want to encourage the use of cannabis, but nor did its members advocate legalisation. However, legalisation would have been logical, and it came as a surprise to some that the report did not recommend it. What the Sub-Committee proposed was a middle way, in which it was recognised that small-scale personal use of the drug was unlikely to harm anyone and certainly did not justify the absorption of police, court or prison resources. This was effectively ‘a plea for the use of cannabis to be judged more realistically in our codes of law and social behaviour’.
The Report was ready for publication 1st November 1968, but was delayed, and not distributed until 7th January 1969. There had been substantial pre-publication leaks and some opinions predicted that the Home Secretary, James Callaghan, would denounce its findings and recommendations. This Callaghan duly did on the 23rd January 1969 and repeated that with the full leading support of Quintin Hogg M.P. Conservative (St. Marylebone) on 27th January in the Parliamentary House of Commons debate of the CANNABIS (WOOTTON REPORT). His grounds were that reducing the penalties for possession, sale or supply of cannabis would be bound to lead people to think that the Government took a less than serious view of the effects of drug-taking; this was not so. Callaghan’s response gave the ‘escalation theory’ of drugs a new lease of life: the suspicion that all soft-drug uses are inevitable invitations to progression to harder ones was, and remains, the greatest obstacle to clear appraisal of the effects of individual drugs.
The climate of opinion at the time was not one to appreciate the careful review of the evidence and clarity of thought expressed in the Wootton Report. The conjunction of the heady topic, an ageing baroness and a rejecting government provided a media opportunity of unparalleled proportions. A consultant psychiatrist’s extraordinary description of the Report as a ‘junkies’ charter’ provided several newspapers with heavily quoted headlines. A chief constable from Cambridgeshire who hoped the Home Secretary would file the Report in his wastepaper basket was also newsworthy; and Conservative MP Sir Gerald Nabarro’s view that Barbara Wootton should be locked up for downright irresponsibility could hardly be resisted. A County Councillor in Welwyn Garden City decided that the recent ‘terrifying increase in cannabis peddling’ in his area was directly due to the Wootton Report. Predictably, several papers ran sensational stories about young people whose lives had supposedly been ruined by cannabis: a nineteen-year-old who started on hash and was then hooked on heroin; and the twenty-two-year-old honours graduate abandoned by her fiancé who tried pot at a party and eight weeks later was on heroin and the streets.
Barbara, herself lashed out at the way the Report had been treated in the press: ‘one of the biggest misrepresentations I have ever seen’. Commenting in the House of Lords on the ‘hysterical reaction’ meted out to the Report from the press, the public and the House of Commons (but not, she noted approvingly, by their Lordships), Barbara offered her diagnosis of the reasons for it. The syndrome was familiar to students of social psychology: people responded with outrage when ‘some critical and objective study threatened to block an outlet for indulgence in the pleasures of moral indignation’.
The widespread stoking of anti-drugs propaganda that then featured in the British press media, was a reminder of the historical events leading to that of the U.S.A. beginning the 1930's, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the decade's long running crusade of Harry Anslinger's ruthless and often racist media campaigns for the absolute prohibition and criminal prosecution of marijuana and heroin use which later strongly influenced and led to hardline drug policies worldwide thereafter and was repeated again in the U.S.A. from 1968 after the election of President Nixon and his administrations' use of propaganda in a new era, divisive cultural 'War on drugs'.
The 1930's Federal Bureau of Narcotics war on Cannabis.
The government dismissal of the Wootton Report proved to be a lost opportunity and a setback in the United Kingdom for any pure scientific medical Cannabis research studies for a legal practical use in medicine.
1st November 2018. In the UK, medical cannabis was approved by the government largely as a result of patient pressure, including high-profile media campaigns for children whose intractable epilepsy had been remarkably improved by the cannabis, leading many patients to believe that the medicine would now be easily available on the NHS. Yet, by March 2020, the medicine was still unavailable to most NHS patients. NHS General Practice Doctors are unable to prescribe cannabis, only specialists can, the rules are too strict. In marked contrast, a recent patient survey by the Centre for Medical cannabis (Couch, 2020) found 1.4 m people are using illicit cannabis for medical problems.
10th December 2021. In Parliament, the Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill [moved by Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)] was debated on its second reading. This is the opening speech..
Jeff Smith:
Before I begin, I want to thank briefly a number of people who have advised me and helped bring this Bill forward today. Among others, particular thanks go to Professor Mike Barnes and Professor David Nutt; to Rudi Fortson; to the parents of children with treatment-resistant epilepsy who have talked to me—Hannah Deacon, Matt Hughes and Emma Appleby; to Peter Carroll and the great campaigners at End Our Pain; to the brilliant Adam in the Public Bill Office here in Parliament; and to Alex Worrell in my office in Parliament.
We have a problem that is acknowledged in this House—across this House, I think—and certainly outside this House, and I know that Ministers also appreciate the problem and want to try to find a way around it. That problem is that medical cannabis—cannabis-based medical products—is a very helpful and effective treatment for a number of medical conditions, but significant numbers of people who would benefit from being prescribed medical cannabis on the NHS are not able to get the prescriptions that they need.
When I was drawn in the private Members’ Bill ballot, I wanted to try to find a legislative way forward to address this problem. I had hoped to agree an approach with the Government. I had a number of conversations with Ministers. I do believe that Ministers want to find a way forward on this but, unfortunately, that has not been possible, which is why I have put forward the proposals that are before us today. As I say, I do not think there is a lack of will from the Government, but that reflects an inflexibility in the system, which is at the root of the problem. The Bill’s modest proposals try to find a way to help overcome the barriers. It is not a magic bullet and it will not resolve all the problems, but in due course it might help some patients to get the medicine that they need.
When the Government passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendments) (Cannabis and Licence Fees) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2018, which moved cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2, it became legal for clinicians on the specialist register to prescribe cannabis-based medical products. That legalisation came in the wake of a high-profile campaign by patients who were unable to get the medicine that they needed. The highest-profile cases—many will remember Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell—were of children with severe treatment-resistant epilepsy. Medical cannabis helped their conditions remarkably, but generally they had to get it from abroad—usually from the Netherlands—or on the illegal market.
The 2018 regulations, which legalised cannabis-based medical products, offered a hopeful way forward for those children and others. Hon. Members and the public would be forgiven for thinking that the problem was resolved, but, three years later, only three prescriptions for medical cannabis have been obtained through the NHS—three prescriptions in three years. Cannabis-based medical products are an appropriate treatment for a larger number of people and they have been able to access private prescriptions, but often they pay a fortune. I am told that there are about 10,000 private prescriptions for cannabis-based medicines in the UK for various conditions, including chronic pain, Tourette’s, anxiety and epilepsy, but virtually no one can access them on our national health service.
After about five hours in the chamber, the debate stood adjourned, and was ordered, that the debate be resumed on Friday 14th January 2022. That day arrived, but there was no time left in the order listing for that debate during the time set. The same happened on 28th January, the 25th February and 18th March. The government controls the order list and can place an unfavourable Bill, for debate, near the bottom of the list on the day. Therefore blocking a bill by continuous adjournment or by filibustering tactics from MP's on the government benches, until it runs out of time. The next schedule order date for the bill debate to proceed was then set to be on 6th May. This was a very suspicious and cynical move by government because Parliament did not sit on 6th May 2022 due to Prorogation, which resulted in nearly fifty Private Members Bills (except those awaiting royal assent) being lost. So that was another missed opportunity and the final blow, ending the attempt to legislate the Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill. That disappointing outcome makes the announcement from a government minister on March 25th, even more of a puzzle to understand the motivations of HM government policy on NHS prescription of cannabis medicine.
25th March 2022 Big money growing the healthy green stuff, but it's not yet for you NHS.
Construction begins on a new state-of-the-art manufacturing facility at Kent Science Park, in Sittingbourne, designed to support the manufacture of regulatory approved cannabis-based medicines. This represents a significant commitment to the UK by GW Pharmaceuticals, now part of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, investing $100 million (£75m) and creating more than 100 highly skilled jobs.
The new state-of-the-art facility will be approximately 60,000 sq. ft, with an investment of over $100 million (approximately £75m). Once operational, the facility will create more than 100 highly skilled new jobs. Due to open in 2024, the facility is designed to support the company's two regulatory approved cannabis-based medicines ('Sativex' and 'Epidyolex') and support future capacity for new medicines under development. Jazz currently manufactures the extract, active pharmaceutical ingredients and the formulated drug products at KSP, occupying 12 buildings with more than 400 employees, making it, and the UK, the heart of our global cannabinoid manufacturing operations.
The new facility has been designed with careful consideration to the environment, and this will continue through its build phase and use. Animal refuge boxes will be installed to promote wildlife in the local area, the use of single use plastics will be minimised and more than 1,100 solar panels will be installed to provide a portion of the building's energy usage.
"The UK has been our home for over two decades. This strategic investment underlines Jazz's continued commitment to the UK and will help us bring potentially life-changing medicines to more patients who desperately need them in the UK and around the world," said Chris Tovey, executive vice president, chief operating officer and managing director, Europe & International at Jazz Pharmaceuticals. "We are thrilled to have commenced construction of this state-of-the-art facility in Kent, which will create more than 100 permanent, highly skilled jobs. This facility, which is expected to open in 2024, will not only significantly increase our ability to support the growing demand for our medicines, but help us maintain our position as a world leader in cannabinoid science."
Over the past two decades, GW has made significant investment in the KSP site, building major in-house processing and manufacturing expertise to meet the growing demand for its medicines. On our journey to creating world-first medicines, we have assembled a large, talented and highly skilled, in-house team of professionals with expertise spanning botanical growing, pre-clinical and clinical R&D, product development, manufacturing and testing. The majority of these roles are based out of our site in Kent.
The beginning of construction at the site was marked by an event attended by Bruce Cozadd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Chris Tovey, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Managing Director, Europe & International at Jazz Pharmaceuticals and representatives from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Department of International Trade, and the Office for Life Sciences.
George Freeman MP, Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, said: "This £75m investment by Jazz Pharmaceuticals in a state of the art pharmaceutical manufacturing facility is a big sign of confidence in the UK life science ecosystem. Not only will this investment support the creation of over 100 additional highly skilled jobs in the region, it is a sign of UK expertise in cannabinoid science and medicines serving the U.K. and beyond."
In my own words..
I say that reading this astounding news, still does not give explanation as to why there remains such a particularly stubborn obstacle to NHS patients being able to obtain prescriptions for these medicines. It obviously has nothing to do with any lack of research development and medicines approval, for it is already government Home office licensed, grown and processed here in the UK. A ton of money is being made, in exporting, selling their high priced medicines worldwide, but easy and affordable access to it, is not happening for the NHS. Why?
This global pharmaceutical corporation is given a monopoly position with its product patents on something that could be made naturally readily available in abundance. For GW, full legalisation or decriminalisation of growing the cannabis plant in the UK would threaten its monopoly and bring down the prices that make it so profitable.
About these public listed companies, in their own words..
GW Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, has established a world-leading position in cannabinoid science and medicine. Founded over two decades ago in response to significant unmet patient need, patients remain our key focus and improving their quality of life, our motivation. GW's pioneering work has led to the regulatory approval of world first, potentially life changing, cannabis-based medicines. Our continued dedication has resulted in the treatment of thousands of patients with our medicines in the UK and around the world. In 2021, GW received the Queens Award for Enterprise in Innovation in recognition of its innovative and ground-breaking work in developing prescription cannabis-based medicines. GW was acquired by Jazz Pharmaceuticals in May 2021.
*(reported buyout price paid for the British company GW was $7.2 billion)
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a global biopharmaceutical company whose purpose is to innovate to transform the lives of patients and their families. We are dedicated to developing life-changing medicines for people with serious diseases—often with limited or no therapeutic options. We have a diverse portfolio of marketed medicines and novel product candidates, from early- to late-stage development, in neuroscience and oncology. Within these therapeutic areas, we are identifying new options for patients by actively exploring small molecules and biologics, and through innovative delivery technologies and cannabinoid science. Jazz is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland and has employees around the globe, serving patients in nearly 75 countries.
11th October 2022 Cannabis: A new proposal
In Britain, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Cannabidiol (CBD) Products has published ‘A Plan for a Legal and Regulated UK Hemp and Cannabis Sector’. It is compiled by the APPG, co-chaired by Baroness Manzoor CBE and Crispin Blunt MP (both members of the present ruling Conservative Party), with contributions from a range of sources, including clinical and trade groups. There is a wide array of research features, covering topics ranging from bee diversity to pharmaceuticals.
Aside from the obvious consumer demand for liberalised cannabis policies, the Plan’s headlines focus on the practical opportunities presented by a thriving hemp and cannabis (including CBD) industry. These include an estimated 594,000+ jobs, £5.5 billion in annual tax revenue, and environmental and agricultural benefits aimed at meeting carbon neutrality commitments by 2050.
The analysis opens by observing that Britain does not have to address the issue of legalised recreational THC (tetrahydrocannabinol – the key psychoactive element of cannabis) to establish itself as a viable commercial hub. Tactically, this is a shrewd opener, cutting through the stasis sometimes resulting from differing views on the recreational use of cannabis. The case is made that the question of recreational use doesn’t have to be resolved once and for all before starting work on a more coherent plan for Britain’s wider cannabis industry. The risk, the Plan emphasises, is that if we fail to act now, the cannabis industry in Britain will be ill- equipped to compete with its peers as the global cannabis market flourishes.
The Plan relies on two primary comparators: the mature cannabis market of Colorado, U.S., and the Scotch whisky industry. Colorado is held as an example of what a country aspiring to world class regulation and global bio-science leadership requires, whereas the whisky industry is used to demonstrate Britain’s reputation for developing high end, premium products. The hemp and cannabis industry’s turnover is estimated to reach £69 billion by 2026.
By comparison, Scotch whisky’s worldwide turnover has levelled at £66 billion.
The parallel being drawn is clear, and while Britain may never be to cannabis what Scotland is to whisky, the opportunities highlighted are too significant to ignore. Aside from the obvious economic benefits through taxation of products (from consumer to medicinal) and reduction in crime, the Plan points to industrial hemp’s environment credentials — through its qualities as a ‘green’ building material and its ability to absorb huge amounts of CO2 — the point being that the benefits of a buoyant cannabis industry go far beyond taxes and consumer experience.
To achieve its objective of a thriving British cannabis industry, as well as hemp, the Plan makes 23 specific recommendations, including:
Move licensing of industrial hemp cultivation, from the Home Office to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): To put Britain on a competitive footing with other hemp-producing countries. The staff of (DEFRA) have agricultural expertise and are better qualified than those in the Home Office to assess applications for hemp cultivation.
Commission a review of the Novel Food Regulations and its applications to hemp-based food supplements: Today, the vast majority of CBD food supplements sold in the UK are imported. This is due to current restrictions on hemp cultivation and the onerous Novel Food process, both of which effectively preclude British farmers from accessing this high-value-add consumer segment of the CBD sector.
Establish commercially viable THC limits in consumer products: The current focus on permitting only CBD isolate sales in Britain (based on a perceived requirement for zero THC content) nullifies the potential economic benefits for a British domestic industry, as isolates are an oversupplied commodity dominated by U.S. and Chinese manufacturers.
Allow NHS GPs to prescribe cannabis and remove the requirement for doctors to triage their prescription with two other peers: The current procedure is slowing down the process and creating unnecessary barriers.
Reform the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: At present, investors remain cautious about investing in the British cannabis sector, owing to the risks associated with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. As a consequence, proceeds from medicinal cannabis business in states such as Colorado may constitute “criminal property” even if fully legal and authorised in the foreign state.
There is no time to waste, the Plan warns. A cabinet minister responsible and departmental leads should be in place by October 2022, with detailed implementation plans in place by June 2023. There is a sense of urgency in the Plan and the urgency is undoubtedly real. Britain risks falling behind the rest of Europe in creating a coherent strategy for its own cannabis industry. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is closer than ever to following the lead of Canada and California.
There is a sense of inevitability as recreational cannabis becomes accepted across Europe. The question is not whether the same will happen in Britain, but when. Through inaction, the Plan cautions, Britain will find itself belatedly following a more progressive European agenda, rather than setting it.
The Plan crams an impressive amount into its 123 pages, posing several bigger questions, each of which easily justify a standalone strategy of their own. Among other things, it discusses how to free the industrial hemp industry of restrictions imposed by the British Government Home Office and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which until now have all but prevented the emergence of any ‘home grown’ CBD industry, and recommends simplifying the industrial hemp licensing process (a topic which crops up again in the context of medicinal cannabis); moving the responsibility for licensing to DEFRA, and enabling farmers to process the controlled leaves and flowers.
The Plan is made up of an undeniably ambitious set of proposals, and if there is to be any criticism of it, it is that it covers too much ground to keep focus. However, its wide reach doesn’t result in an oversimplification of the issues. Rather, it is effective in highlighting the need for a singular strategy to drive the British cannabis industry, whilst allowing space for its individual strands to develop.
The cannabis industry hasn’t been immune to recent global trends and downturns. The initial excitement, following the 2018 legalisation of cannabis-based medicinal products, rapidly turned into acute disappointment for the NHS patients. What the Plan offers is a glimpse of a longer-term, more sustainable cannabis industry, one that is outward looking and thinks beyond its own immediate success. The current British Government seems to be, soon, on its way out of power. This now being a matter of this country's economic survival and wellbeing, the next Government to follow, has to take a Green initiative and implement this plan.
October 26th 2022 Germany shows the way for European countries to legalise cannabis
Germany has made plans to legalise cannabis, which could create up to 27,000 new jobs and bring annual tax revenues and cost savings of about 4.7 billion euros. Health Minister Karl Lauterbach presented a cornerstone paper on planned legislation to regulate the controlled distribution and consumption of cannabis for recreational purposes among adults. Making Germany one of the first countries in Europe to legalise cannabis.
Due to 25% of cannabis consumers being between ages 18 and 24, the legalisation aims to squeeze out the cannabis black market. The law will enact the legal acquisition and possession of up to 20 to 30 grams of recreational cannabis for personal consumption. In order to provide efficient safeguarding of the product, the German government are also to introduce a special consumption tax and develop cannabis-related education and abuse prevention programmes. Additionally, private self-cultivation would be permitted to a limited extent. Any continued investigations and criminal proceedings connected to cases no longer illegal will be terminated.
Licensed shops and pharmacies will be able to sell cannabis. Germany’s health minister stated this was to regulate the distribution and consumption of recreational cannabis amongst adults, who were already consuming the drug in increasing numbers via the grey market. The government’s official motivation for legalisation is to break up the black market trade and protect minors from contamination and early access. Health Minister Karl Lauterbach said in a statement that the government would practice a “safety first” principle in its efforts toward legalising marijuana use. Germany has also made it a priority to analyse the social effects of the new legislation after four years — ensuring it is indeed doing everything it wants to accomplish.
If Germany, the largest economy of the European Union, enters the legalised cannabis space with countries like the United States and Canada, there will probably be a domino effect. Justus Haucup, Director of the Dusseldorf Institue for Competition Economics, said, “European countries that have a much bigger problem with illegal cannabis use, like France, are watching very closely what Germany is doing at the moment.”
Two examples to illustrate what an online legal Cannabis shop web pages would look like.
To fight against black market trade, cannabis and hemp industry leaders are lobbying for Germany to offer competitive pricing and internet-based online purchase capabilities instead of just relying on sales from a select group of brick and mortar dispensaries. One thing the German government will have to consider since they legalised medical marijuana in 2017 is their reliance on Canada, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to import 85% of its annual use. The addition of legalising cannabis for recreational use will put an even more significant strain on the government, and they’ll need to figure out where and how they meet demand.
With Germany making the necessary, practical, and well-thought-out steps to legalise recreational cannabis use — the rest of Europe should be excited. This is a great step in providing jobs, tax revenue, education, and safety to minors from illegal and unmonitored products. Germany has acted as a leader and benchmark for progressive legislation. This new opportunity has the potential to help many people and governments discover new ways to not only protect the youth but make cannabis use safer and more monitored.
Wednesday April 12th 2023 Germany is now set to legalise personal use of cannabis
The German government has put forward a revised policy to legalise cannabis, allowing citizens to cultivate, possess and consume the drug for recreational purposes, in a reform that could have far-reaching repercussions for European drug policy. Germany will initially not go as far as to allow cannabis to be sold in commercial premises.
Karl Lauterbach, German health minister, said the country’s policy of criminalising cannabis had “failed”. “We know we can’t get ahead by just tightening the criminal law,” he said. “We are not creating a problem but trying to solve one.” The German bill is far less ambitious than the government’s original plan, which envisaged the free sale of cannabis in Dutch-styled coffee shops. Those proposals had to be scaled back after encountering some resistance from the European Commission, Lauterbach said.
Instead, the law would allow the creation of non-profit “cannabis clubs” that could grow cannabis for recreational purposes and sell it to their members for their own consumption, modelled on similar arrangements in Malta. The clubs, which can each have no more than 500 members, all over the age of 18, will be allowed to sell up to 25g of cannabis a day to them, and up to 50g a month, as well as up to 7 cannabis seeds or 5 cuttings a month. Members younger than 21 can receive just 30g of cannabis a month from the club.
Public consumption of cannabis near schools or kindergartens would be banned, and in the pedestrian zones of towns until 8pm. The law would also allow possession of up to 25g of the drug, and the private cultivation of up to 3 cannabis plants. The bill also envisages regional “model projects” that would seek to establish commercial supply chains for the drug. That would allow companies to produce, distribute and sell recreational cannabis to adults in specialised shops “in a licensed, state-controlled framework”. These projects, which would run for just 5 years, would be scientifically monitored to see how the creation of a commercial supply chain affected child protection, the health system and the black market.
Lauterbach said the goal of the model projects would be to “seek support in Europe for this progressive cannabis policy, orientated towards prevention”. He said legalisation would provide “more security”. The new law would shield consumers from impurities and toxic contaminants, and better protect the nation’s youth. “We want to fight the black market, we want to drive back drug crime and get a grip on the steadily growing toxicity of [cannabis] products,” Lauterbach said.
German justice minister Marco Buschmann echoed the health minister’s comments on the failures of past drugs policy, which had not reduced crime. “The ban on cannabis criminalises countless people, forces them into criminal structures and ties up huge resources in the law enforcement agencies,” Buschmann said. “It’s time for a new approach that allows for more personal responsibility.”
Friday February 23, 2024 Germany.. Bundestag passes cannabis legalisation
After a long political debate, this afternoon, the Bundestag passed the federal government's draft law "on the controlled handling of cannabis". In a roll-call vote, 407 MPs voted for the law, 226 voted against and four abstained. The law will allow adults to possess up to 50 grams of cannabis for their own private consumption in the future. In public spaces the maximum limit should be 25 grams.
The Federal government bill
The law provides for the legal possession and consumption of cannabis for adults. Private cultivation, community non-commercial cultivation and the controlled distribution of cannabis by cultivation associations are now possible. The law makes it easier to use cannabis responsibly, according to the federal government's justification.
According to the information, the law aims to contribute to improved health protection, strengthen education and prevention, curb the illegal market for cannabis and improve the protection of children and young people. Current developments show that the consumption of cannabis continues to rise despite the existing prohibition regulations. Cannabis purchased from the black market is often associated with an increased health risk because the content of the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is unknown and may contain toxic additives, impurities and synthetic cannabinoids.
Private cannabis cultivation
In the future, it should also be possible to privately grow up to three cannabis plants for personal consumption. However, privately grown cannabis must be protected from access by children and young people. In addition, non-commercial cultivation associations will be allowed to grow cannabis in the future and pass it on to their members for their own consumption. Strict regulations apply to this. A maximum of 500 members are permitted for the cultivation associations, who must have their place of residence or habitual abode in Germany. Only membership in a cultivation association is permitted. In the cultivation associations, cannabis may only be passed on to members to a limited extent, although membership and age must be verified.
Limited dispensation of cannabis
A maximum of 25 grams per day or 50 grams per month may be passed on to members. The distribution of cannabis to adolescents between the ages of 18 and 21 is permitted at 30 grams per month with a THC content limit of ten percent. Consumer cannabis may only be distributed as hashish or marijuana in controlled quality and in its pure form. The consumption of cannabis is prohibited in a protection zone of 100 meters around cultivation associations as well as schools, children's and youth facilities, children's playgrounds and publicly accessible sports facilities.
In order to protect children and young people in particular from the drug, there is a general advertising and sponsorship ban for consumer cannabis and cultivation associations. There are also plans to strengthen prevention through an educational campaign by the Federal Center for Health Education (BZgA) about the effects and risks of cannabis. The amendment will be evaluated for its social impact after four years. The prescription requirement for medical cannabis remains. A gradual entry into force of the reform is planned. The law as a whole is scheduled to come into force on April 1, 2024. However, the regulations for community cultivation in so-called cultivation associations are due to come into force on July 1, 2024.
Britain, in a state of SNAFU.
Snafu was also the name of a short lived British Rock/Blues band I watched perform live at the Reading Rock Blues Jazz Festival on the weekend 22nd – 24th August 1975. However, they have no other connection to what I want to convey in the conclusion of "If Unreason Rules".
"Make Britain Great Again" comes the howl of the delusioned souls whom, in their fantasies, want to return to the previous centuries glory days in the power and wealth of the British empire. Reliving the Boy's Own 'Ripping Yarns' of a bygone era, and in a modern world that can see the pathos and danger of this foolish outlook. The three issues I have written of...Inadequate housing, Taxation of school uniforms, Cannabis prohibition. These are among the hundreds of other issues needing urgent attention. All are ignored with no progress being made and this is unlikely to change in a society controlled by the vested interests of the present political power structure.
You cannot modernise a monarchy. Placing a jeweled crown on another head will not heal the ailments that plague the established electoral system of representative democracy of the people in Britain. Of course you can make fine speeches in parliament and talk absolute sense as I have documented here. That does not work when you come up against a solid wall of unreason, constructed by a dishonourable executive cabinet office of government ministers whom disregard the rules that underpin civilised society.
On 6th February 2023, the liberal leaning Lord Hesletine, despite him once being part of the infamous Thatcher government, made an impressive argument highlighting the insanity of exiting the European single market, the mass removal of all the retained E.U. regulations and of breaking international agreements. "Hear, Hear" they murmured in the chamber when he finished his speech and sat down. That is a far as it will get.
To end this topic, here is a song written by Ray Davies and performed with The Kinks.
Its titled "Did ya"
Went for a walk down the Old King's RoadTo see if anybody was thereBut there was nobody home at 3 Bywater StreetAnd they had sold Cadogan SquareAnd I remember myself in my tie dye sweaterAnd my hipster corduroy flaresAs I knocked on doorsAnd walked down one-way streets that led nowhereAh, did ya ever think it wouldn't last forever?Did ya ever think that it would get this bad?Did ya ever think that everything would get so crazy?Now the Chelsea Drugstore needs a fixIt's in a state of ill repairAnd my Cuban heels are hurting my feetJust to add to my despairLa-di-dahs drove Mini cars in the summertime(In the summertime)Now they're towed away for parking on a double yellow lineAnd they can't pay the fine(Did you ever think)Did you ever think we'd all believe the hype?(Did you ever think)Did you ever think the classes all would revert back to type?(Did you ever think)Did you ever think the system ever really got it right?Oh, babyThey filled us full of false illusions and promiscuityAnd they led us down that class-less road to mediocrityAs we walked down that alley way of hopeWe thought we'd found the motherloadBut we were led like lambs to that promise landWith all the debts that we would oweOnce trendies posed for tourist pictures in the summertime(In the summertime)Not content with taking PolaroidsThey purchased all the property that they could findAnd I've just sold mine(Did you ever!)Did ya ever think that this green and pleasant land(Did ya ever think)Would end up in the bottom of some garbage can(Did ya ever think)A dustbin full of promises and half-hearted plansOh, babyDid ya, did ya, did ya ever think?Did you ever think?(In the summertime)Now miseries and groaners moan and reminisceAbout the good old times and whine, whine, whine(Did ya ever think)Did ya ever think when things were really fab(Did ya ever think)That we'd be looking through a dustbin for a dog-end to drag(Did ya ever think)And sleep on park benches wrapped in plastic bagsOh, babyDid ya ever think that it would get this crazy?(Did ya ever think)Did ya ever think that it would get this way?(Did ya ever think)Did ya ever think that we would pay the price for being lazy?
