Commons Chamber

Thursday 30th October 2025

(began 6 hours, 19 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
09:34
09:35
09:36
09:37
09:38
09:39
09:40
None Portrait Q3. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in businesses. (906089)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

three, please, Mr. Speaker. To restate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:49
None Portrait Q4. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Industrial Strategy. (906090)
-

Very tough question. your permission.
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:51
09:51
09:52
Blair McDougall Portrait Blair McDougall MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
-
-
Mr. speaker. British Buses APPG. Our bus manufacturing industry supports thousands of jobs across the country, but faces an existential country, but faces an existential challenge from China. Market share has increased rapidly and schemes such as the SNP's Disaster Scotland such as the SNP's Disaster Scotland scheme said less than 20% of orders to Scotland's sole manufacturer indirectly jeopardised 400 jobs indirectly jeopardised 400 jobs earlier this year. What interventions are ministers considering to contend with the rise in Chinese market share? As the minister discussed this with colleagues in DFT prior to the publication of the ten year bus publication of the ten year bus pipeline next month, record bus funding should not be a shopping list for China.

The minister. list for China. The minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The I share my hon. Friend's frustration, the lack of an industrial strategy from the SNP government in Edinburgh has meant that workers Alexander Dennis in his constituency are on furlough rather than doing what they do best, which is make the world class buses for public transport. For our part, we are supporting combined authorities to coordinate the procurement of buses through a Crown Commercial Service commercial agreement and publishing a ten year pipeline of future bus orders to provide the much needed certainty the sector requires.

This includes providing advice on using social value criteria that suppliers like Alexander Dennis are well placed to meet when procuring new buses, such as creating and retaining jobs in a way that respects our legal obligations. And I pay tribute to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my friend for keeping this issue on the agenda. Keir Starmer Secretary. Of State looking at me with a grin as though.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grin as though. I am out of order. All I want. To do. We are still only on the second question. I've got to get some other members in bother about and it's going to get worse, surely? In a minute. Robin Swann, I've got
09:54
09:54
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:59
10:00
10:01
None Portrait Q6. What steps he is taking to help support business growth through his Department's plan for small and medium-sized businesses. (906093)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sally Jameson. Question number six, Mr. Speaker.
10:01
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:06
10:06
None Portrait Q8. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on increasing the use of British-built cars by Motability Operations. (906095)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Step. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I regularly engage with my right honourable friend, the Work and
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:08
None Portrait Q10. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing fair pay agreements in a range of business sectors. (906097)
-

Andy McDonald.
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
None Portrait Q12. What steps his Department is taking to improve the UK's trading relationships with other countries. (906102)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government wasted no time when it
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:15
None Portrait Q15. What steps his Department is taking to support businesses in the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain affected by the recent cyber attack. (906105)
-

Oliver Ryan.
10:15
10:16
10:16
10:17
None Portrait Topical questions: Business and Trade
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will we come. To topicals? Ben Obese-Jecty question Speaker South Devon.
10:17
10:18
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:38
10:38
10:39
10:39
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and. With your permission, I just want, if I can, before answering my hon. Friend's question just to say hon. Friend's question just to say a few words about Hurricane Melissa. It's currently a category 1 or 2 hurricane, and it's passing through the Bahamas. Outer islands currently impacting our UK overseas territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands, where I've been in touch with the Governor and Premier in the last day. We have deployed response teams to the region and mobilised 2.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help Jamaica rebuild in the wake of this disaster.

The full scale is, of course, only becoming clear now. And Mr. Speaker, the House, I'm sure will concur with the words of His Majesty the King and all those who have sent their support and solidarity to all those affected who've lost their lives, not just in Jamaica, but in Haiti and other countries across the region. But the Right hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask this question. She will know of my keen interest in this issue of many years, including my past career working with Oxfam in her own constituency on these issues, and indeed with our late close friend Jo Cox, worked on past atrocities and appalling situations in this history of conflict in Sudan and the reports of mass atrocities against civilians and the forced displacement caused by the CSF.

Advances in Al-fashir are both horrifying and deeply alarming. The scale of suffering is unconscionable, often based on ethnicity. Women and girls facing widespread sexual and gender based violence, and there is evidence mounting of defenceless civilians being executed and tortured, and indeed, aid workers also being targeted as they try to reach the most vulnerable communities facing famine. As the United Nations Security Council penholder, we have called an emergency council session later today to continue to maintain the spotlight on this situation and to build pressure on the RSF to de-escalate in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2736.

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning the killing of aid workers, including reports of executions in the Saudi maternity hospital, which of course was one of the last functioning facilities in Al-fashir. And this followed her statement on the 27th of October, which called on the RSF to protect civilians and urgently facilitate safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access. As the third largest donor, we are mobilising 23 million of the 120 million announced in April to support the emergency humanitarian response in North Darfur, and this will support the delivery of life saving food and health assistance, as well as support to those facing sexual violence through partners such as the ICRC, Sudan Humanitarian Fund and Cash Consortium Sudan.

And as the Foreign Secretary said, the RSS leadership are responsible for the actions of their forces. All parties to the conflict must urgently act to protect civilians and facilitate safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access. And I can confirm that our special representative has contacted, been in contact with the RSF and Tarsus to press for restraint, respect for international humanitarian law and indeed is pressing for a call with Hemetti now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anneliese Dodds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very grateful to you for granting this grateful to you for granting this Urgent Question. The scale of suffering in Sudan's war on civilians is almost impossible to civilians is almost impossible to comprehend. As my right honourable friend said, a population the size of Australia's living in acute
10:42
Anneliese Dodds Portrait Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP (Oxford East, Labour )
-
-
of Australia's living in acute hunger, a population the size of London's forced to flee their homes. Consistent reports of conflict related sexual violence and consistent warnings that if the international community did not act, we would see effectively a slow motion. Srebrenica and my right honourable friend set out those reports yesterday evening of what may have happened at Al-fashir Maternity Hospital. The idea that 460 people could have been slaughtered in a maternity hospital, patients, their companions and medical staff is surely must be a turning point in this war and the international community's focus on it so very quickly.

Can I ask my honourable friend, he talked about the special representative's contact, but what specific conversations have the Foreign Secretary and ministers had with their counterparts, particularly in the quad countries, the United States, which said it wanted to take a leadership position on these issues. Also, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and of course, the UAE on the issue of civilian protection. Secondly, I was very pleased to hear that an emergency session has been called. What will the UK government be specifically pressing at that emergency session for other countries in the UN to commit to? Thirdly, is the government confident that the arms control export regime will be held to and has been held to and been robust in this case, given recent reports? What is the government's assessment of claims that Al-fashir appears to be the start of a systematic and intentional process of ethnic cleansing of fur, Zaghawa and indigenous communities through forced displacement and summary execution.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, what is the government doing to prevent what happened and is happening in Al-fashir from also happening in Tawila to where so many thousands of terrified civilians have fled.
10:44
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Minister. outrage and and horror at the reports that we're receiving and indeed are our, you know, repeated calls for restraint on all sides in this conflict have been consistent. We have shown leadership as the UN penholder as one of the largest donors. And, of course, our work with other partners, including in the quad and of course, the work of our special representative. And I know that she also reflects the concerns of many Sudanese living in the United Kingdom as well, including in my own constituency and indeed many honourable and right honourable members across this House.

What is what is happening there? And she has some very specific questions. We are, of course, in regular contact with our partners in the quad and obviously engage with all of the countries on a regular basis, both at ministerial and official level. And senior officials are speaking on an ongoing basis, including the special representative asking all parties to show restraint and refrain from activity that prolongs the conflict. And she asked about the situation in Tawila. Absolutely. We want to make sure that people are supported, particularly if they have fled.

And of course, as I said, we've mobilised 23 million to support the emergency humanitarian response, and I'm very happy to come back to her with further details. She asked about the position that we will take out the Security Council. It will be very much in line with the position that we have taken throughout, which is to call for an immediate end to this violence, to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and upheld, that sexual violence is brought to an end, and that we protect civilians in line with international law.

And of course, it is also crucial that we continue to support efforts for accountability for any of these atrocities, and particularly as evidence emerges and we support the centre for Information Resilience, NGOs looking to collate evidence of atrocities, and we will not rest until all evidence has been collated and that action is taken to hold people accountable. Of course, we recently supported lobbying efforts to secure the mandate renewal of the UN fact finding mission at the UN Human Rights Council on 6th October for the third year running, and that is the only UN mechanism investigating human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.

But of course, Mr. Speaker, as members will be aware, it has not been allowed access by either sides in this conflict and therefore the situation to establish what is happening is incredibly difficult. But we are looking very carefully at all of the evidence. She asks about the importance of our export control regime. I absolutely can confirm that we continue to emphasise to all parties the important, from refraining from actions that prolong the conflict, and indeed, we want to see people come to the negotiating table to seek a political resolution.

And we take very seriously any allegations that any equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of any of our arms embargoes or conditions. And I can assure her that I'm in contact with our officials on these, these matters. And we must absolutely ensure that nothing is getting in which can facilitate these horrific scenes. But what I will say is that we share her horror. We will continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to play a leading role, including at the United Nations Security Council later today. Wendy Morton Shadow Minister.
10:47
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wendy Morton Shadow Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I'd like to just start by thanking the Minister for his update on the Minister for his update on Hurricane Melissa and on behalf of His Majesty's Official Opposition, we add our thoughts and solidarity for all those affected at this time. But I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this Urgent Question today and to the Right honourable member for raising this matter, too, because reports of a massacre at Al-fasher Saudi Maternity Hospital are really quite appalling.

The deliberate targeting of civilians, including women and newborns, is a disgrace. And these latest atrocities underline the urgent need for renewed international resolve to protect civilians and ensure accountability for those responsible. We on these benches have consistently called for stronger, coordinated international action in Sudan, as the UN Security Council pen holder, the UK has both the platform and the responsibility to lead. So I'd just like to ask the Minister if he can tell the House what concrete steps will the government take next? Will there be further targeted sanctions, and what diplomatic action is being taken to deter the entities who support continues to sustain this conflict? The government hosted the International Humanitarian Conference on Sudan earlier this year.

So I'd like to ask what has actually materialised from this? Has new funding been disbursed and what progress has been made since those pledges were announced? Mr. speaker, the collection and preservation of evidence is vital if perpetrators of these terrible crimes are to face justice, so can the Minister tell us what are the latest developments in the UK? Support for accountability mechanisms, and will the government now redouble those efforts on humanitarian assistance? Millions remain displaced with aid routes under constant threat.

So can the Minister update the House on whether British aid is reaching those most in need, and what assessment has been made of its efficacy? Because, Mr. Speaker, Sudan matters to its people, to regional stability and to our shared humanity, and the UK must not shrink from its responsibilities to protect civilians, to pursue peace and future.
10:49
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Minister. of the Shadow Minister in terms of her horror and and concern about this situation, and I think this is shared across the House. She asked about our work at the United Nations. And absolutely, as I said to my Right honourable friends, we will be using the session today to recall for all parties to adhere to their obligations under international law and that the perpetrators of crimes must be held accountable. We need to see an end to this violence, and these latest reports are simply shocking and horrific.

And she asked about diplomatic action. As I've said, we're in close contact with members of the quad and indeed all others, and particularly given our role as the pen holder at the Security Council, and I'm happy to update her on that. In in due course, she asked about sanctions. She will know that we don't comment on future designations, but I can absolutely assure her that we keep these matters under close review. She asked about the humanitarian response. Indeed, our assistance is aimed at supporting 650,000 people.

We are the third largest donor and to over 2.5 million people in Sudan have benefited from UK aid since the outbreak of the conflict in 2023. Both the actions taken under her government and ours since the election, and indeed we've continued to use every forum we can and to act. During the United Nations General Assembly session, Baroness Chapman, the Minister for Africa and The Other Place co-hosted a high level event with Liberia and the Netherlands, particularly on the issues, and condemned the party's disregard for international law and urgent accountability, which was the last issue she raised.

I want to assure her this is absolutely central to what we are doing and again, the support that we provide to different organisations as well as, of course, our longstanding support for the ICC and other organisations, bringing all those responsible for atrocities to justice is absolutely clear and actually in relation to previous phases of this terrible conflict. The first I understand, first prosecutions actually, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first convictions have taken place at the ICC in relation to activities in Darfur in earlier phases of the conflict. Sarah Owen.
10:52
10:52
10:53
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to begin by, on behalf of my party, associating ourselves with the remarks about Hurricane Melissa and remarks about Hurricane Melissa and wishing those on the island of Jamaica all of our best wishes at this very difficult time. I am grateful to my honourable friend for Oxford East for raising the question to you for granting it. Mr. speaker, as everyone has stated,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

civilians. By the. CSF in Al-fashir are truly horrific. Yet the tragedy is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the international community was warned and that there has been a pattern of these terrible atrocities by. The CSF.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the question for the minister today is, has the UK done enough? On the 26th of June, the Prime Minister said that we do not spend enough time on Sudan in this House. That may be because the Minister for Africa sits in the other place. for Africa sits in the other place. But when the Lord Purvis asked Baroness Chapman on the 17th of July about the UK's work to enforce July about the UK's work to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 2736 on the protection of civilians in Al-fashir, Baroness Chapman said Al-fashir, Baroness Chapman said and I quote, I often find myself asking what is the point of any of these declarations? So I ask the these declarations? So I ask the minister, is he equally defeatist about the UK's role as a penholder at the UN, or will the UK use its position today to press for a Sudan wide arms embargo and turning to wide arms embargo and turning to the role of UK weapons in the conflict, which had been widely reported? Will the Minister today ban arms sales to the UAE until it is confirmed that the UAE is not using British weapons to arm the
10:54
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

R.s.f. Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman raises honourable gentleman raises important issues and I know of his insincerity on these issues given his past career and having worked with him on these matters in the past, I would say that ultimately the parties to the conflict are responsible. And we've been very, very clear about that. And of course, anybody responsible, if these allegations indeed turn out to be true, must be held accountable, and we won't rest until that is done in both our role in the United Nations and in relation to supporting accountability for any atrocities that have been committed.

We, of course, engage on a very, very close basis, not just about the statements. It's about that direct contact of our special representative, Richard Crowder, the team in Addis who are in direct contact with the parties. It is about that direct contact with other members of the quad. It is about the role we can have on galvanising international attention on this issue, which I agree has not received as much attention as it should for a very, very long time. And I've always been very, very clear about that.

And of course, we are having a direct impact by the aid and support that we provide, particularly on those issues relating to the impact on women and girls, which is so horrific. He asked about arms exports. I can absolutely assure him that we have one of the tightest and most restricted arms export control regimes in the world. We constantly keep these matters under review. I can assure him that I am in regular contact with officials on these matters, and of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course we will take any allegations very, very seriously in those matters. Markus Campbell-Savours thank
10:57
10:57
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
issues and we take very seriously allegations that any UK made equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo, which reflects on the point raised by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. The UK for the Liberal Democrats. The UK has one of the most robust transport arms export control regimes in the world. We constantly regimes in the world. We constantly assess our licenses for the risk of diversion, and we regularly prevent exports which might be diverted to exports which might be diverted to an undesirable end user or end use.

We are aware of reports of a small number of UK made items having been number of UK made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan, but I'll keep these matters under close review. David Mundell. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for granting this Urgent Question, as you have done a number of others. But this important issue should not But this important issue should not have to come to the floor of the House by way of Urgent Questions. The government must be more The government must be more proactive. The Minister for Africa gave a commitment to the International Development Committee International Development Committee that it would be in terms of this Parliament, and I hope that that will be honoured.

I would be grateful if the Minister could set grateful if the Minister could set out more fully what the discussions with the UAE have been, because not with the UAE have been, because not only are the concerns about the use of weapons, but it is quite clear that the UAE have significant that the UAE have significant influence over the army and are a key player. And it is stated by the key player. And it is stated by the government that we have influence with the UAE.

So are we using that with the UAE. So are we using that influence to give to make sure that they use their influence? With the RSF? Here? RSF? Here? Well, I know his comments and I will certainly ensure that my colleague in the Other place is aware of them. We, of course, are actively engaged on this, and our teams and officials, and indeed our special representative are working on this issue every day. So I don't want him to think that we do not take this seriously, because we absolutely do.

And particularly in light of the new allegations in recent days, and we are the third biggest donor, we are the pen holder, and we have been showing leadership on this issue over the last year and much, much before that, including under his government. As he knows, we he asked specifically about the quad and he asked about the UAE. We of course, welcome the efforts of the US led quad in seeking a resolution to the conflict. And he will know. The court issued a statement on the 12th of September, which was a significant development, but we remain in close contact with all the relevant stakeholders and parties in pushing for a humanitarian pause for a wider ceasefire and for a Sudanese led political transition.

And we're going to continue to support quad efforts in that regard, including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our role on the UN Security Council. Rachel Blake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'd
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
House give us the forthcoming business leader?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will include Monday the 3rd of November. Second Reading of the Public Office Accountability Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Office Accountability Bill. opposition. Day, in the name of. The official opposition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The official opposition. Wednesday, the 5th of November consideration of a Lords message to the to the Employment Rights Bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

followed by consideration of. Lords amendments to the Public Authorities Fraud, Error and Authorities Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill. The House will then rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday, conclusion of business on Wednesday, the 5th of November, and return on Tuesday the 11th of November. Tuesday, the 11th of November will be a general debate on the contribution of the armed forces to mark remembrance. Wednesday, the 12th of November, an opposition day. In the name of the Official Opposition.

Thursday the 13th of November consideration of Lords November consideration of Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Friday the 14th of November. The House will 14th of November. The House will not be sitting and the provisional business for the following week. Monday the 17th of November. Monday the 17th of November. Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity beyond National jurisdiction.
11:18
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

jurisdiction. Bill Jesse Norman. I thank. The leader.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The leader. Very much for that update. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know the whole. House will want to. Join me in sending.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our very best wishes to. The victims of the hurricane in Jamaica and. Now in Cuba and Haiti.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now in Cuba and Haiti. And the Turks. And Caicos Islands. I also, if I may want to pay a personal. Tribute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

may want to pay a personal. Tribute to Prunella. Scales. Who died. This. Week. A magnificent actress, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A magnificent actress, the lynchpin of a great acting dynasty and as was her husband, Timothy and as was her husband, Timothy West, a wonderful reader of audiobooks, Madam Deputy Speaker, amongst the news this week have amongst the news this week have been the following items. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central, has been elected as Deputy Central, has been elected as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and has vowed to work constructively with number ten Downing Street.

The number ten Downing Street. The Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly contradicted the Prime Minister in relation to the collapsed China spying case. The Labour Party has fallen in the polls to a record low for a polls to a record low for a recently elected government, and Irish citizens may be forced now to Irish citizens may be forced now to have a digital ID card to work in this country under the government's this country under the government's new plans. Again, if I may, I'd like to raise with the leader two like to raise with the leader two important issues one directly relating to the recent business of the House.

As a former Chief Whip, he will know that the first question at Prime Minister's Questions always follows a simple formula. The Prime Minister is asked to list his engagements. He or she typically presents public condolences or congratulations and comments on an issue, often an international issue, affecting the whole House. And he then says, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and so on. Unfortunately, since taking office last year, the present Prime Minister has increasingly misused this first engagement question.

Two weeks ago, he used it to avoid making a full statement to the House about China, something that I do not think can have pleased the speaker's office this week. He used it to try to score a series of partisan political points by my counting the eighth time he has tried to do this since taking office. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an abuse of procedure. It is a discourtesy to this House. Its effect is to turn an open question into a party political broadcast.

It undermines a valuable opportunity to bring the House together every week on a matter of public importance, before the usual knockabout of PMQs begins. It is unworthy of the Prime Minister's office and unworthy of the Prime Minister, who is a very decent human being as a person. So could I ask the leader? Could I invite the leader politely to ask the Prime Minister to desist? My second issue concerns the so-called and I, and may I wish him good luck in doing so.

My second issue, if I may, concerns the so-called graduate premium. The government holds an extremely powerful set of data known as the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes, or Leo data, which link people's school results, university records and later earnings. Many people in this House, the Leader of the House, perhaps more than any of us, will know that education can transform people's lives for the better. This data set can show what and how it does so in detail, but most of it remains entirely hidden.

Only limited figures have been published, such as average graduate earnings. Five years after university. The government also has information on what happens to those who don't go to university, but this too is withheld, so we still can't answer questions which are, for many people, crucial. How financially worthwhile is a particular course or a particular institution? How effective are apprenticeships? What difference does university really make? This secrecy weakens public trust and good public policy. Families and young people are being forced to make major life choices.

Without clear facts they cannot see, because no member of the public, or indeed of this House, can see which courses or institutions genuinely improve this kind of opportunity. It seems that government will increasingly use this data themselves to shape policy, but without making those data public. People go to university for many different reasons, and financial returns are only part of the story, of course, but these data are gathered at public expense and describe public outcomes. With the right safeguards, they should be open for review and public debate and discussion.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explained exactly how. So may I ask, will the leader ask his colleagues in the Department of Education to make the data public soon? Thank you, Madam.
11:23
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In his. Tribute to Prunella Scales, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tribute to Prunella Scales, a fantastic actress, and. Also to comment and to join him in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comment and to join him in his remarks about the effects of. Hurricane Melissa. The UK. Jamaica.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jamaica. And many. Caribbean countries in the aftermath of the hurricane. The Foreign. Office is delivering

**** Possible New Speaker ****

humanitarian assistance to. specialist. Rapid deployment. Teams in the region, to provide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Teams in the region, to provide. nationals. Our thoughts are obviously. area. But also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But also. Those in this country. With Caribbean. Heritage who will. Be particularly. Worried at this time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Worried at this time. Madam Deputy Speaker, this week the House marked 75 years since the the House marked 75 years since the House of Commons chamber was rebuilt from ruins after it was bombed during the Second World War. And I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. For the events that he's organised this week marking this important anniversary. And as we important anniversary. And as we approach Remembrance Sunday. I was pleased to announce the general debate on the contribution of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

armed forces, which. Will take. Place on Armistice Day. At this time each year, this House and our time each year, this House and our nation come together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces and veterans, heroes who sacrifice so much for our country. I also want to thank the speaker for the speaker's Conference, which has brought forward its second report with recommendations aimed at tackling abuse and intimidation towards MPs and candidates. I thank the conference for this important work and the government will look closely at the recommendations, not least through my role on the Defending Democracy Task Force.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd also like to express my personal thanks to Mike McCarthy, BEM, who is departing the Government Whip's Office this year, this week, having served every government since 1987, I hope the whole House will join with me in wishing him well. In terms of the remarks of the Shadow Leader of the House. And in particular about the recent election of a new Labour deputy leader. I would gently point out that this was done by taking the matter out to the members of the party who made their choice, and a very good choice indeed.

That stands in stark contrast to what has happened opposite, where the member for Newark has simply foisted himself upon the party as the unofficial deputy leader in terms of his remarks on private members. Sorry in of Prime Minister's Questions, if what the Prime Minister is doing is not in order, then I would expect whoever is in the Chair would point that out. But really, to some extent he can't win because if he doesn't comment on the matter of the day, which is matters of urgency, and people will ask him why, and if he does, he gets called out for it.

And the second point that the honourable gentleman made about school results. I know that he is a passionate advocate for education, including higher education. And I agree absolutely that school results and education is absolutely transformable in people's lives. So I will draw his attention to the Secretary of State, who shares our view on the transformation that education can bring, to see what further data can be usefully made public. And let me just add, Madam Deputy Speaker, and before he calls me out for knockabout, it's not knockabout, it's simply about some of the things that he might also have added, which is this week that the government announced an £8 billion deal to supply typhoon fighter jets to Turkey, supporting 20,000 jobs and nearly 6000 workers at Warton.

Now, knowing that their jobs are secure, Awaabs law has come into force, improving lives for tenants living in 4 million social rented homes across England. And today's announcement of 60,000 knives being taken off our streets is very, very good news indeed. Along with the news that knife crime is falling. And I hope as a result of that that lives will be changed. This is what the government means by its plan for change in action, making defence a driver of growth in the economy, but also driving renewal and opportunity up and down our country.
11:28
11:28
11:29
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bobby Dean. Deputy Speaker, May I associate myself with the comments about hurricane victims? And indeed Prunella Scales? Earlier this week, Prunella Scales? Earlier this week, we were treated to the delight of a Conservative opposition day debate. And I think the main thing that we learned is that they do enjoy being in opposition. We had their housing spokesperson decrying the housing crisis that their government left behind, and the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions committed to reducing the welfare bill that went up on their watch.

And we hear that next week. Madam Deputy Speaker, we're going to get yet another Conservative opposition day debate. They are set to get 17 to the Liberal Democrats, three in this parliamentary session. And we would just like to lightly suggest that if we want to elevate the debate that we have in this chamber, we might want to redress that balance in the next parliamentary session. Moving on to fraud. Speaking of, I would like to I'd like to focus on fraud. Fraud destroys lives.

It eradicates people's savings, it plunges people into debt, and it diminishes people's faith in human nature. Fraud is on the rise. It's up by almost a fifth, and it makes up nearly half of all crime in the UK today. Now, I know that the government is set to release a fraud strategy soon, but there are worrying reports that a key component of it is about to be ditched. You see British banks, they pick up the tab for fraud in this country.

They're the ones who reimburse the victims, even though the vast majority of fraud these days happens on online platforms. And this is something that the Prime Minister himself recognises before election. He said that tech companies have a clear obligation and should have a clear financial incentive to tackle fraud, and this commitment is the one that we're worried about dropping, apparently to appease the president of America, Donald Trump. And in fact, the government set a gushing letter to big tech CEOs over the summer, saying that they want to congratulate them on their efforts for tackling fraud.

But UK finance and the FCA, they both disagree. They say that big tech companies are not doing enough. So can the government publish its fraud strategy and make a commitment that they will hold Big Tech to account and ensure they're hitting the pocket for not tackling fraud?
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
Martin Vickers Portrait Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the Backbench Business Committee. Sends his. Apologies and I'm standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies and I'm standing in for him. It's unfortunate that we are going to miss an opportunity for a bit of backbench time next for a bit of backbench time next Thursday, but could I ask the Leader of the House to to reconsider the following Thursday, when we have Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is likely to finish early, and perhaps there could be an hour or two at the end of the day for additional backbench business.

Next Tuesday in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on the impact of reductions of the official development assistance on international development. And on the 11th, there will be support for the dyslexic pupils at school on the 13th of November. Modern day slavery in Pakistan. On the 18th of November the eighth, a debate to mark the 80th anniversary of Unesco and on the 20th of November, inequalities in unpaid carers and World COPD day. Turning to my own question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've raised on a number of occasions the impact on my local community of the possible closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery.

There is growing concern amongst union representatives and the local community, and indeed possible investors in in the refinery that the government do not favour a a bid that takes in the entire site and continues refining products. And indeed, one of those potential investors is considering a judicial review of the process. Could I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement from the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the next few days? Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not sure I share his confidence that
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Update on the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
-

On infected blood compensation. And I call the Minister Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds.
12:36
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I'd like to update the House on the government's progress in establishing infected blood compensation scheme. In July, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its final report and the report made a number of recommendations on ways the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works better for all infected and affected people. I updated the House then to confirm that the government was responding positively to the additional recommendations that we bring forward legislation as soon as we could to address the recommendations that we could implement immediately.

The regulations before the House today will achieve a number of those changes and demonstrate this government's commitment to responding swiftly and constructively to the recommendations of the inquiry. Specifically, these recommendations respond to five of the inquiry's recommendations by removing the HIV eligibility start date, removing the minimum earnings threshold for a person to claim the Exceptional financial Loss award, removing the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis of hepatitis B or C, making changes to the deeming provisions for the severity of hepatitis C, and expanding eligibility to include estates of all affected people who have died during the 21st of May 2024 and the 31st of March 2031, which actually goes further than the inquiry's recommended date range.

The regulations also put back the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from the infected blood support schemes to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, or Ibca, by one calendar year. This means Ibca will begin making phased support scheme payments from January to March 2027. Ibca requested this change to allow them to concentrate on accelerating the delivery of compensation and expanding the service to all eligible groups this year, whilst ensuring which is essential. There is no disruption to those receiving Support Scheme payments.

Now, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be a separate opportunity for the House to debate these regulations in full of detail before they're approved. And I, of course, look forward to that debate. I would also like to inform the House that we have implemented the inquiry's recommendation to reinstate support scheme payments to partners bereaved after the 31st of March this year, until they have received compensation. Applications for those individuals reopened on the 22nd of October. I'm grateful to colleagues across the devolved administrations and their support schemes for the collaborative approach to make this happen today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm also launching a public consultation on proposed changes to the Infected Blood Compensation scheme, as recommended by the inquiry, and I encourage responses from the infected blood community and indeed all those with an interest in the infected blood inquiry. And I can assure you that every response, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be considered carefully. The consultation sets out questions across seven issues, specifically, harm caused by interferon treatment, the special category mechanism and its equivalence, severe psychological harm, past financial loss and past care.

Evidence requirements for exceptional loss. Supplementary awards for affected people, and unethical research. The government has sought initial advice from an infected blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert group to develop proposals on these topics. In response to the inquiry's additional report for this public consultation. The feedback that we received through the consultation will inform the decisions the government takes, and the Technical Expert Group will also take part in targeted engagement with the community. I previously gave the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward.

That is why the five additional members that have been appointed to the Technical Expert Group were appointed following valuable feedback from the infected blood community stakeholders. And it's why I'm also today. Madam Deputy Speaker, publishing the minutes of the meetings of the group that have taken place so far. I look forward to hearing the views of the community within the consultation process and beyond, as we work together to ensure the government's response meets expectations. We will publish a response to the consultation on Gov.uk within 12 weeks of it closing and as I set out in July, we will also need to bring forward further regulations next year to implement changes following the outcome of the consultation.

Listening to and working with the infected blood community is essential to ensure a compensation scheme which works for everyone, and I am hopeful the consultation will allow us to do just that. I now turn Madam Deputy Speaker to the delivery of the compensation scheme as it currently stands. Ithaca has made significant progress in the delivery of compensation as of the 21st of October, 2476 people have received an offer of compensation and over £1.35 billion has now been paid.

Ayoub Khan reached that significant milestone of having paid out over 1 billion in compensation last month. I'm sure the House will agree that this is a welcome and notable progress in delivery of compensation. I can also tell the House that there are offers that have now been made, totalling over £1.8 billion as of the end of September. All infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim, and Ibca has set out its intention to open to unregistered, infected people in November.

In order to open, Ibca must build a service which allows them to confirm an infection before a claim begins. Check the identity of each person, claiming and ensuring that all the necessary legal and financial support is in place for anyone who wishes to use it. This approach, which Ibca also took with the first group of people making a claim, means that the numbers will initially be lower. But I expect that, as with the first group, those numbers will rise exponentially as progress is made.

Now, earlier this month, Madam Deputy Speaker Ibca also launched a registration service for people who intend to make a claim to register their details. As of the 21st of October, they have received 10,573 registrations of intent to make a compensation claim. But to be clear, what that figure is is all registrations. It's not unique people or claims. These registrations will be particularly helpful to identify the unregistered infected people for the next group, and indeed more as the service grows.

Now, as members of the House will be aware from my previous statements on this matter, Ibca is an independent arm's length body and it's vital we respect that independence whilst also ensuring I do what I can to drive progress forward. So that is why in July I had asked for an independent review of Ibc's delivery of the scheme. That review, led by Sir Tyrone Urch, began in August and concluded earlier this month. And today I'm publishing that review and I've deposited a copy in both libraries of the House.

And what the report notes is that Ibca has made substantial early progress toward delivering compensation to victims of infected blood. But the report also makes recommendations to aid the scaling up of operations and delivery of compensation to complex cohorts. And I will, of course, be considering all those recommendations carefully alongside the delivery of the compensation scheme. The government has also continued to make progress on interim payments. In July, I informed the House that we would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who are registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme, and had sadly passed away.

In addition to the interim payments of £100,000, which opened for application in October 2024, I am pleased that applications for those payments opened last week, meaning that some estates could now be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments. Since applications for the initial interim payments opened last year. Over 600 estates have received payment totalling over £60 million. That's in addition to the £1.2 billion the government has paid in interim compensation more widely. I hope that this additional interim payment brings some temporary relief to the families impacted.

I hope that Ibc's intention to begin the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year provide some reassurance. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am resolute that we get this right and I hope that the progress that I've set out today shows that we are taking positive action and crucially as well, that we are listening to and making progress alongside the community. After all, those who have been so impacted by this horrendous scandal must be at the core of every decision we make in government and indeed across this House.

They deserve no less and I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement to the House. I call the Shadow Minister, Mike. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his statement for advance sight of it.
12:46
12:47
Mike Wood Portrait Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)
-
-
also in acknowledging the significant improvement in the pace significant improvement in the pace of payments that Ayoub Khan have have made in recent months. And so have made in recent months. And so we thank Sir Francis, David Foley and all of their team at ABCa. I and all of their team at ABCa. I also welcome, on behalf of the opposition, the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian's implement some of Sir Brian's recommendations from the additional report and particularly those on HIV.

Start date Stevenage of HIV. Start date Stevenage of severity bands. Evidence of date of diagnosis, affected estates and Bereaved Partner Support Scheme Bereaved Partner Support Scheme payments. But turning to the recommendations around hepatitis, recommendations around hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the government will remove the that the government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route. Exceptional loss award. route. Exceptional loss award. However, I didn't hear any specific reference to measures to address recommendation. Fauci in the recommendation.

Fauci in the additional report around effective treatment. So perhaps the Paymaster treatment. So perhaps the Paymaster General would be able to set out how the how the government intends to give effect to to that recommendation in particular. And similarly, could the Paymaster General also set out what measures the government is taking beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that is announced in response to recommendation two on the transparency of scheme design, which is, of course, particularly important in light of the inquiry's wearing finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to.

Turning to those recommendations that the government did not feel able to accept immediately, I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues, and clearly there is a need for transparency, as I have said, and for proper consultation. Now, this consultation period lasts until the end of January next year. And of course, we recognise there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period. But given the clear need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once the consultation period does close, that the government responds swiftly to that consultation paper and introduces any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary, and more broadly, can the Minister set out how the government is applying the lessons that have been learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates? That is set out in his statement.

And what action is the Minister taking with the. As he said, independent infected blood compensation authority to ensure that the welcome progress in the pace of payments continues to accelerate, and that that progress is not jeopardised by changes to rules and to processes. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I opened, Sir Brian's inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy.

Although clearly, no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many, many years. The recommendations in the report the Sir Brian published shortly before the summer, are an invaluable contribution to that. But looking forward, the will obviously need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. And that's one of the reasons, of course, why the cross-party work, both before and since the election, I think has been so important to give confidence in that uncertainty.

But looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the mechanism for doing so? At an appropriate time? Nick Thomas-Symonds I'm grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nick Thomas-Symonds I'm grateful to the Shadow Minister for the tone of his remarks, and I do note what he said about the time that he
12:52
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
he said about the time that he received the statement and indeed other documents. And he knows me well enough to know by now that I have great respect for this House and always facilitate shadows, having material with plenty of time. So I will certainly take that away and look at why that happened. And I do join the Shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the inquiry, but also to Sir Robert Francis and to the Chief Executive, David Foley. This House quite rightly held me to account in the past for the number of payments that had been made, and ibca were running a test and learn approach, and what I always said to the House was there would be that smaller number that was a representative sample of cases, but what it would do is allow Ibca to scale up exponentially.

And we are now in that exponential phase, that steep curve phase where when I look, as I do every single week at the number of payments have been made, it is now starting to increase very significantly, which I know will be welcome to members across the House. With regard to the point the honourable gentleman makes about treatment for hepatitis. Of course, in the consultation, one of the things we are looking at is the impact of interferon, which I know had such a detrimental impact on so many people.

The Shadow Minister is right to raise the transparency mechanism. And whilst I don't need a piece of legislation for that, that is something that I'm looking at and want to get into place as soon as possible. With regard to we'll have the 12 week consultation. The government will then respond within 12 weeks, and I will then want to bring forward a fourth set of regulations with the greatest possible speed, and to the shadow Ministers final point about learning lessons. That's precisely why I asked Sir Tyrone Urch to carry out the work that he that he has done, firstly to learn the lessons from what's happened so far and how we can best take it forward.

But also what are the practical steps that I can assist Ibca with in terms of scaling up now to make payments to affected people, which is clearly going to be a far larger number of people that are going to deal with. And just to finish on a on on a consensual point, I do think the cross-party support for this has been hugely important. The continuity between the work I did and the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury.

I think maintaining that has been hugely important in the delivery of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scheme. Clive Efford Deputy Speaker, I welcome. The statement from my right
12:54
12:55
12:56
Tessa Munt Portrait Tessa Munt MP (Wells and Mendip Hills, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tessa Munt. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister very much indeed for his statement and he'll see the pile of papers, which I hope are the criticisms I never have to raise again. I welcome his statement and the work that's been done, particularly that by Sir Brian Langstaff and others, and for his intention to listen to and work with the infected blood community. This scandal remains the worst treatment disaster that's happened in the history of our National Health Service.

And it's a source of shame for successive governments and for that health service. And those people whom we heard from as constituents have been let down by medical professionals and the NHS, and in many cases they were indeed victims of deliberate malpractice and of cover up. So all those warnings about unsafe blood were ignored and officials failed to inform patients. And in many cases, those patients paid and are still paying with their lives. So we had an estimated 30,000 victims who suffered.

And that was compounded by the injustice of having to wait decades for compensation. I understand that as of my latest data, six times as many people have died waiting for justice as have benefited from this scheme. I hope the Minister might be able to update me with a slightly more accurate figure, but payments have been made up to date at an infuriatingly glacial pace. So, if I may, I'd like to ask the Minister, please, if about the timelines for delivering compensation, and that he might be able to reaffirm that all eligible victims, all 30,000, will receive compensation by 2029.

I'd also like to ask him to confirm that the consultation he's going to undertake will not delay in any, any way the payments that are currently being made and the speed at which they are being made. More specifically, can I ask him about the 916 victims of the special category mechanism about which I've written before? Are they in a different state from the advice that was given in August last year, and are we has this changed completely from the situation that changed in February this year when the rules changed? And I just wanted to check.

I'm not entirely clear. The infected blood compensation authority, the current approach was that people were not able to apply for compensation. Now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you're saying I believe that they wait. This month? This month? Now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This month? This month? Now you're saying I wasn't? And I hope you're coming to a conclusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you're coming to a conclusion. Indeed, and I apologise. I wonder whether the Minister would confirm that, that they won't have confirm that, that they won't have to wait, and that those 10,573 registrations are only part of registrations are only part of those. When we recognise that there are 30,000 victims. Thank. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
13:00
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes. And I thank the Honourable lady for the tone of her comments. The on the final point. Yes, that's just the number of registrations. It's not the totality of the of the number of victims. On the point she raises, I entirely share her concern that and I've always applied this test. This is what I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry in May that in terms of making changes, I always have at the forefront of my mind, not causing additional undue delay to the payment of compensation.

She asked me as well about 2029. That is a backstop, right? That is not a target date. And I said that to the inquiry as well in May. The target is to get the payments out as quickly as possible. And as I said in response to the Shadow Minister, the test and learn approach was always taken because we felt that that would ultimately be the way and that's what would ultimately be the way to get the money out to the largest number of people as quickly as possible.

And I think we are in now an exponential phase where the number of payments are going up quickly. And she's entirely right as well, to draw attention to the number of people who die before they actually secure justice. And that's, again, the reason why I've been pushing forward for payments as quickly as possible. And finally, on special category mechanism, it's one of the seven issues that is in the consultation. I know it's been asked before and I would urge whether it is her, indeed her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents, to respond to that. Grahame Morris thank you, Madam
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
Dave Meg Hillier, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his statement, and he talks about lessons learned. So I hope he's looked at the National Audit Office, work into different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. And I hope he also supports the national campaign to get people who received a blood transfusion and and contracted hepatitis C to be tested for that, because the helpline is getting two people a week saying that they've been infected in that sorry, each month infected in that period.

But I do want to press him further on the point raised by my honourable friend the member for Eltham and Chislehurst and the honourable gentleman just now, the. It is a real issue for this particular scheme that people are getting it because they are dying, because they got infected blood. So it is not a it's not a random and coincidental thing that they might die of something else and then a family member inherit it. They're getting it because they're dying. And if they happen to receive it just before they die and their family inherit it, they pay Inheritance Tax.

And if those victims will feel wanting to make sure that their family are properly supported because they are no longer able to do that, so could he renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this? It's a small and defined group of people. It doesn't need to set a precedent more generally, but I think for this particular scheme where the state fail people so much, it is resolve.
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:17
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
Emily Thornberry Portrait Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I have to say, in the 20 years I've been in Parliament, I have a confession to make. I have never confession to make. I have never done one of these before, so it's all entirely new to me. And if I am doing anything wrong, please. And I'm sure you will put me back on the straight and narrow. The situation in Palestine is a humanitarian catastrophe, an injustice great unfinished business. It's also been a huge diplomatic challenge for our country and indeed for the rest of the world.

We as a country believe that we have some responsibility to try to find a way through. Rightly so. Given our history in the region and the potential assistance that we can give. And for a long time now, our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine has been dictated by being close to the Americans, believing that they're the ones with the influence. But the Americans, until recently weren't really doing anything. And the Israelis were certainly weren't listening to the Americans, in any event, and they weren't listening to us.

That was for sure. And the international community, I think, just stood and watched as the hopes of a two state solution just ran into the sand. Meanwhile, our long standing alliances with with countries such as the Arab countries were blemished by our continual refusal to recognise Palestine. So while we had willingness, we weren't as influential as we should be. Or we could be. And in the view of our committee, we believe that Britain needed to have a stronger voice. And there is more that we could do.

And in the words of the former member for North East Bedfordshire and Middle East Minister, we tended to do too little and too late. Most of us thought that it was beyond time to recognise a Palestinian state. It was of immense importance as expression of intent and goodwill, and to help reset those really important relationships in the region. I was really pleased that four days after our report was published, the government committed to recognising a Palestinian state. Now, it wasn't just because of our report, except that persuaded them.

It was also the circumstances of the French Saudi conference and the campaigning of a great many people, not least Members of Parliament from this House, and in particular the member for Rotherham and Chair of the International Development Committee. Our report also recommended that that humanitarian aid must immediately flow in under the auspices of the UN, and called for the immediate dismantling of the humanitarian Foundation. I'm glad that we can see the back of that organisation and good riddance. But I am clear.

But I am keen to hear more from the government on its contribution to the UN 60 day plan to deliver vital food aid and sanitation. But it isn't just about Gaza. We all agreed that everything has to be done to protect the West Bank from an increasingly violent and organised settler movement, with representation at the highest levels of the Israeli government. We went on a visit. We saw evidence of settlers thinking that they could act with impunity, and met organisations that had been established to monitor settlements, who were being undermined by Israeli legislation that takes away NGO funding.

We urge the government to prepare a comprehensive ban on the import of settlement goods, because when we say that settlements are illegal, we must mean it and we must follow through. We also called for the government to immediately evacuate injured children for medical treatment in the UK, and I am pleased that the government immediately committed to doing that. We call for the government to participate in peace building and kick start negotiations for a long term, two state solution. The government told us that it had played a full part in the Saudi French conference.

But the question really now is what's happening now? How are we going to keep moving forward? We have to keep moving forward. Many of us have been asked to express a conclusion on breaches of international law from genocide downwards. Now, the government has consistently maintained the position that they are not able to make a determination. Firstly, because it isn't for them, it's for a court and secondly because we need to see the evidence. I have to say, if you ask me, it looks like a genocide to me, but I know that I'm not a court and that is why we need to play a role in collecting evidence for the future legal reckoning that must come.

I'm really disappointed. I'm more than disappointed. I'm genuinely surprised that the government, in its response to our report, didn't agree to this. One of the things that the Labour government prides itself in, and I'm proud of it, too, is its commitment to upholding international law, no matter how difficult it is. So I really don't understand why they've taken that view. Our report in the sum is the sum of a huge amount of work by members of the committee and committee staff, for which I am hugely grateful.

Of course, we always knew that it would, as soon as it was published, go out of date and maybe it's gone out of date in a good way. At least there is some semblance of a ceasefire now, and the hostages have been released, though it is very difficult to say all of that given the events of this week. What remains consistent is the approach that we believe that the government should take to be consistent, to be clear, to act as a convenor, a sensible friend, a force for good, to work hard, to refuse to look away, and to take seriously our responsibilities in the region because peace will come.

It is a question of when and how and whether Britain will be at the forefront of crafting that, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we believe that Britain should. Julian Lewis.
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:33
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:42
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
considers property service charges. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I remember vividly the day over 20 years ago now, that I picked up the years ago now, that I picked up the keys to my first flat in south east London. It took time to get into a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it.

I spent the first managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor whilst I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. Now I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I couldn't afford. I never had to rely on a third party management to rely on a third party management company to make essential repairs, and when the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to to move on, my flat was easy to sell.

But others haven't been so lucky. They bought leasehold on a private estate and with it comes a private estate and with it comes a life sentence. Today I want to give a voice to those people on the hook a voice to those people on the hook for ever increasing service charges, trapped in homes they can't afford but can't sell either. Who thought they were buying their dream home? But actually it was the start of a nightmare. And make no mistake, nightmare. And make no mistake, this is no exaggeration on my part.

People's lives have and are being ruined by excessive service charges. Yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me start by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers like doctors and nurses due to its proximity to East Surrey Hospital. Like many estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion.

So First Port was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to a first port on top of their mortgage. On top of their council tax for pretty basic services. And these service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some of these homeowners to the absolute brink. I first became aware of this issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year, a meeting I will never forget.

She told me how she purchased a one bed flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation, she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life.

And then there's Alfie, who purchased a two bed flat in 2018. He was thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment. His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600, a 70% increase. For that, he says, they basically cut the grass and ensured the building. When heating is included, it gets even worse due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes 3400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum, 135% increase.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, again, I remind you that he's paying council tax and a mortgage on top. Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success, he'd need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. But to do this they needed a recognised tenants association and to set this up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found this to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties so are not easily traced.

With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years, even for £50,000 less than he bought it, just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The we buy any property companies won't touch it, and even the auction sites which run a no sale, no fee policy don't want to take it on. I will of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course give way. Honourable lady for Reigate for bringing this forward. And the fact bringing this forward. And the fact that with so many in the House would be an indication of the of the importance of it. And my own constituent Strangford the I've constituent Strangford the I've seen an increase in problems with people who bought their House or flat many years ago, who are now facing increasing difficulties over the level of charges. Unexpected costs, increases, poor communication or service quality. communication or service quality.

Does the Honourable lady not agree that a service charge can never be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that a service charge can never be seen as a blank check for the owners, and the spend of charges must be itemised and clear? I thank the honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for that intervention and I do completely agree. Going back to completely agree. Going back to Alfie. To add insult to injury, he told me that first port charges an £80 administration fee if payment is £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand in 2023. He received this fee on Christmas Day. Whilst in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees, First Court refused to remove the charge Court refused to remove the charge in spite of his financial struggles.

And I will in just two seconds. And I will in just two seconds. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss because that is the only option

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because that is the only option available to him. I'll of course give way. Like this problem of residents being paid or being charged late payment fees. I have a number of constituents who never received the original letter demanding payment, who are then being charged. These late payment fees despite not knowing a payment was due. Does she agree with me that the kind of lack of communication. There is another critical issue here that we've got to address.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for raising that, and I completely agree that that is very much an agree that that is very much an issue. And I have heard that issue as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park, 25 find themselves in the same situation, trapped, unable to sell situation, trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, property in the first place.

Sam, another resident, said it's not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people's lives. He has a wife and people's lives. He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he can't move to a bigger property as he can't sell this one. It is literally stopping them It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the valuation, and he still couldn't sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family. Will she live?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will, of course. I'm very grateful. As a constituency MP, I've had some appalling experiences with appalling experiences with Firstport at Oak Lodge in Hockley and at Temple Way in King George's Court in Raleigh, the latter a four storey McCarthy and stone development that they manage where the lift was out of action for the lift was out of action for almost a year. Isn't the fundamental problem with Firstport that they are ultimately owned by that they are ultimately owned by several offshore venture capital companies, who were very aggressive in seeking revenue from their tenants, but don't seem to be very willing to provide a decent quality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

service in return. Rebecca Paul. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving that very useful content context, and I will come on to this further in my speech. I think this further in my speech. I think this is one of the challenges we have. Property service companies are seeking to make a profit, and yet seeking to make a profit, and yet they are unregulated and they are they are unregulated and they are free to do as they will. And it is for this place to get a handle on that.

And I hope today we can constructively think about the potential solutions to address this problem that I know across this House. We all recognise the scale of the issue, and we don't want our constituents to continue to face this. And I'm afraid to say Firstport aren't covering Firstport aren't covering themselves in glory. I've now heard hundreds of times over about their lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs, and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they've never received, like window cleaning.

With no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the charge a resident is used to the full. All of these things are symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. And that's because there's no incentive for property service companies to act any differently, because it's incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them. So they have free reign to pretty much do what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere.

Part 25 service Charge for the year ended 30th of April, 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million, 13% higher than last year's estimate. The increase in costs is primarily for the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25. Residents are also paying council tax for exactly these type of things outside the estate. Madam Deputy Speaker, Out of the 1.9 million service charge, Firstport keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out as just under 8% of the total service charge.

How easy was it for me to find this £142,000 number in first quarter breakdown? Not very. I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs. There wasn't a nice neat summary at the front showing the total amount. Now this 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry. I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or the other, which is an issue in itself, but the key point to recognise here is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for Firstport to keep the cost base low.

In fact, the more money spent on maintaining the estate, the more people they employ to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion. Their management fee appears to be a perverse incentive indeed. Now, it would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout the speech, and I suspect others will take up that mantle during this debate. But we must recognise that it's the current system that allows them to operate in this way. They I will, of course, give the honourable.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for giving way. My local district council, South Derbyshire District Council, have taken the District Council, have taken the bold and rather commendable decision to ban any of these new decision to ban any of these new management fees, backdating it to January 2025. But that doesn't help people that have already got homes that they bought before 2025. So I wonder whether she agrees with me that we should press on our government to make legislation so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to make legislation so that we can help people that are tied into these arrangements come out of them. I thank the honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for that point, and I think an important debate that we need to have today is about what we do have today is about what we do going forward. For those people who haven't yet bought a leaseholder, but also what we do to help our constituents right now in this situation. And I'm really interested to hear everyone's different views on that. So these companies, they are a symptom of the problem. They are opportunists making money from an inequitable system.

It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness, and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. So today I unshackle leaseholders. So today I hope we hear honourable members views on solutions as well, not just issues. We can't keep building just issues. We can't keep building new housing estates under this same model perpetuating the problem. This is increasingly important in light of the government's ambitious plans for building 1.5 million new homes over the next few years.

I have to say, when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, if nothing has changed, I will be strongly advising them to not purchase a leasehold on a private estate here. To start us off, I will give you my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards. But they aren't going to fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed, what is critical is a change to the default model so that homeowners aren't paying the council and a private company for the exact same services.

One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged, in all but the most exceptional of cases, to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates. But for this to work in practice, developers would also need to be obliged to ensure the infrastructure meets the council's standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties are put on an equal footing, with everyone else paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues.

But what of those like my constituents, your constituents already trapped? Maybe something more radical is needed, like a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates? Difficult. I know in this current financial environment and the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives. I know this government is also keen to move forward and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves.

There are some benefits to this over the current model, but it's not the silver bullet needed and brings its own set of problems. Anyone like me who has been involved in a resident association or similar organisation, or indeed even just understands human nature, will know that most people don't want to pay out for significant works, so the works just won't get done, and in time that will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values again. It will become difficult for residents to sell their properties.

It's just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. So I would urge the government to think again on plans to make Commonhold the default tenure for new build flats. I will of course give a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. Her for an excellent speech and she's making some excellent points. I really think the radical I really think the radical solutions are the end of solutions that we need to be looking at. I should probably declare an interest because I'm a director of the Right to manage company. Got so fed up of their freeholder failing to manage our building properly, we took back our building properly, we took back control. But she, as she rightly points out, that is not the end of the story.

You still need to get a the story. You still need to get a lot of people to agree on a lot of things, particularly building up that reserve fund is very, very difficult. So can I just encourage difficult. So can I just encourage her to keep coming up with these ideas that are bolder than the ones that are out there at the moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are out there at the moment, fix. Rebecca Paul I thank the honourable member for his encouragement and I will. I will encouragement and I will. I will keep coming with the radical ideas just before I finish. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to raise the issue of education and information of education and information provision to home buyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they wouldn't buy them or they certainly wouldn't buy them or they certainly wouldn't pay as much for them.

Now, I'm sure Conveyancers will include warnings and information when warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it's not cutting through. People are sleepwalking through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up service charges they are signing up to. We must do more to make sure people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be most grateful if the Minister today could give their view on how best we can address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies.

What role he sees the regulator for the industry playing in driving higher standards, and what default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate the Minister's views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

development completion. Thank you. Yeah, yeah yeah. The question is. As on the Order Paper and I call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As on the Order Paper and I call Justin Madders and all backbenchers are now on a six minute speaking limit. Justin Madders. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I congratulate the honourable member for Reigate, for her excellent speech and for bringing excellent speech and for bringing this debate? Can I also state for the record, I'm a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. We do such good work in advising do such good work in advising leaseholders. It was eight years ago that I stood over on that side of the chamber and described the of the chamber and described the use of leasehold in new developments as the ppi of the House building industry, and I'm pleased to say the previous government eventually started to tackle that.

And the current government, I hope they're going to complete that work soon so that we complete that work soon so that we can finally condemn leasehold to the history books. And it was four years ago in this chamber when I years ago in this chamber when I was also stood over there when I warned that estate management fees could replace leasehold as the new could replace leasehold as the new PPI of the House building industry, or as the indomitable women of the National Leasehold Campaign termed it fleecehold.

And now it has come to pass. It just seems that about every new development built in this every new development built in this country adopts the same exploitative model. And the public are rightly asking, what are we going to do about it? I know the going to do about it? I know the Minister has amassed great expertise in this area and is keen to crack on with reform. There are
14:00
Justin Madders Portrait Justin Madders MP (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
-
actually a number of ongoing legal cases, and I'm pleased to see that the bogus argument about human the bogus argument about human rights has been dispatched by the High Court. But there are a number of others where well resourced freeholders are trying to preserve the status quo. And not every court is as wise as the High Court were in that human rights case. The in that human rights case. The Court of Appeal recently found in the Romney House case that where a tenant goes to the first tier tenant goes to the first tier tribunal to challenge a service charge, and the tribunal only need to consider whether the process was reasonable, not whether the charges were actually reasonable themselves.

This is absurd, and it's had the effect of those leaseholders having to pay for the refurbishment of a to pay for the refurbishment of a gym, which they don't actually own, and it is the freeholders, with their seemingly limitless resources, that can challenge and delay actions by leaseholders to preserve their rotten system at every turn. their rotten system at every turn. So the sooner we implement the leasehold Act in full, the better. And there is a clear warning in this as to why we must crack on with tackling estate management fees more broadly as well.

I look forward to the government's response on the consultation, but would suggest, as the honourable would suggest, as the honourable member for Reigate did, in terms of stopping any more estates being built in this way, and we must end this practice as a matter of this practice as a matter of urgency, is actually going to be much easier to do that than ending leasehold will be. So I'd urge the Minister to send a clear instruction to local authorities that estate management arrangements will no longer be accepted in planning applications, and to legislate to ban them on any new developments if necessary.

The longer we put off fixing that, the longer it will take us to fix this mess. I fear the Minister will be told that such a move would have an impact on on the ambitious housebuilding plans that we rightly have, and how it would damage the housing market more generally. But weren't we first faced with the same arguments when we tried to abolish the leasehold? After all, these developers don't have to pay commuted sum to the local authority, and indeed they have additional lucrative income stream.

But despite these new income sources, it doesn't seem to have had any impact on the price that they charge for people to buy the homes in the first place. The reality is that an estate management company is nothing more than a calculation on the balance sheet. The developers have zero interest in keeping the verges neat and tidy. After they have gone, they can make the bottom line look more attractive by creating a management company. They will and they keep getting away with it because we let them.

And of course we must act to protect those already caught in this trap. It is very clear, as we've heard, many people are not aware of the implications of an estate management company or how much it will cost them when they buy their home. Often, first time buyers are excited by the prospect of owning a new home, and they place their trust in the system the lenders, the developers, the lawyers and the echoes of leasehold scandal with this are very loud. Glitzy sales staff paint a very different picture.

They never set out the reality that, in addition to the significant commitment that they are making when they buy a home, they're also agreeing to pay an unspecified sum to often unspecified recipients for as long as they stay in the home. The mis selling and the failure to properly advise has all the hallmarks of the leasehold scandal, and we should not be surprised by this, because the same actors are involved in that industry as they're involved in these rip offs as well. A recent example of some of the novel ways that this financial trap can be described by sales staff came to my attention when constituents on a recently built estate all had the common explanation given to them that this service charge was for a storm drain, but that it would be paid off in a few years, so they didn't need to worry about it.

Well, 15 years later, they're still paying and they're not even sure if there is a storm drain. And even if there is, who is actually responsible for it. Yet the invoices and threatening letters still come in. We also met recently with interested parties on another new development, where we were trying to clarify who was responsible for maintaining what and who they were accountable to, and because the estate had been developed over several years by different developers, we had about ten different organisations represented at that meeting.

It's little wonder we struggle for so for transparency with so many people involved. But the fundamental question from the homeowner is this why are they paying twice for the maintenance of open spaces, once through management fee and once through the council tax? We should start from the basic principle that local councils should be doing all of this work. And estate management companies are an unnecessary tax on homeowners. How long before we see a concerted campaign to get people to get reductions on their council tax, on the basis they are being taxed twice in the wrong hands? This sort of campaign could really pit communities against one another.

And let's not forget, buying a home is the biggest single purchase people will ever make. It needs far greater accountability for what developers say and what they build. Housing is, of course, a critical part of our infrastructure. It's a fundamental part of a person's life. But it has been shown time and again that we cannot rely on the market to deliver that in a responsible way. So let's get control of these companies, empower the homeowners, and let's legislate if necessary so that this rotten, avaricious model becomes history,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just like leasehold eventually will be. Katie Lam. Thank you. Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Reigate, for securing this debate in the House today. Earlier debate in the House today. Earlier this year, I wrote to hundreds of residents across the Weald of Kent to get a better understanding of how property management companies how property management companies are operating across our home. What I discovered was very worrying and as many members here will recognise, as many members here will recognise, it is an all too common story.

To date, I have heard from nearly 100
14:04
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)
-
-
date, I have heard from nearly 100 people across 11 estates, all complaining about their property management company Firstport. The pattern is as depressing as it is predictable, steep and unexplained. Increases in service charges, slow and inadequate responses to maintenance issues, and a serious lack of accountability and transparency. Let me share a few examples, Madam Deputy Speaker, constituents in Yalding and Headcorn have told me that they are facing a 70 and 40% rise in their management fees, respectively. These are not minor uplifts and nobody can tell them clearly what they are paying for.

I understand that costs are rising, not least for things like insurance, but at the very least, hikes like this should be very clearly explained. Constituents in Maldon and Kingsnorth have documented cases where no maintenance at all was carried out for months, despite repeated chasing grass, not cut, lights not fixed, rubbish not cleared yet. The bills keep coming. And finally, constituents in Tenterden and Coxheath have told me that it is beginning to affect the value of their homes. As my honourable friend mentioned earlier, some have said that their properties are becoming unsellable because buyers will not take on the liability of these charges and mismanagement.

In one case, two sisters are trying to sell their late father's flat. He bought it for £150,000, and they now cannot sell it. Even at 60 at auction, the price has fallen below £20,000. They told me local estate agents refused to list it because of the fees associated with managing the property. And Madam Deputy Speaker, much of this is part of a wider pattern. Many residents on these estates are paying twice for what most people would regard as the same basic services.

They pay full council tax to their local authority, as everyone does. But on a growing number of estates, the council has not taken over the roads, the street lighting or the green spaces and therefore does not maintain them. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to that point about councils not having yet adopted such things as the roads or pavements. I have the example of Pebble Beach in Seaton, where I Pebble Beach in Seaton, where I represent, where residents have been charged fees and even threatened with legal action before the estate has been handed from the developer to the property management company. Has she come across this to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across this to? I am afraid so. I fairly regularly in fact. And the legal action that the honourable member mentions is is an important thing to reflect on because it can, in some cases be really deeply distressing and seem very aggressive for people who are who aggressive for people who are who are just trying to get get what it is that they've already paid for, or in some cases, what they're or in some cases, what they're paying for that doesn't even exist yet.

Residents are required to pay yet. Residents are required to pay a second set of charges on top of this council tax to a private management company such as Firstport, so they pay council tax Firstport, so they pay council tax for street lighting, and then they pay a private company for street lighting, they pay council tax for lighting, they pay council tax for maintaining the verges, and then they pay again for someone to cut the grass. Except, of course, in the grass. Except, of course, in many cases the grass is not in fact cut.

In these situations, the homeowner has almost no practical leverage. The council says it is private land. The management company says you're contractually obliged to pay us anyway. And the person who lives there who cannot simply switch provider and he must disclose these charges when they come to sell, is left with very little ability to challenge for value. People are paying more and getting less. There is also a continuing lack of transparency, with residents routinely denied a proper breakdown of charges, not given meaningful answers, and in some cases, not even given the dignity of a reply.

Firstport is one of many property management companies that have been allowed, in some respects, to conduct themselves with impunity, largely because local residents have almost no consumer power or transparency. I've met with representatives of Firstport, and they do assure me that the company is changing and improving. I very much hope this is true. But Madam Deputy Speaker, in case this does not happen, the last government did take important steps to address this through the Leasehold and Freehold Leasehold Reform Act 2020.

For the purpose of that act is to give residents clear information about what they are being charged and why, to widen access to redress when something goes wrong, which I think is crucial, and to make sure that disputes with management companies can be resolved fairly. But residents won't see those benefits until all the secondary legislation is brought into force. Guidance is published, and management companies are given a clear expectation that they will need to comply. So I would caution perhaps this government against assuming that the answer might be to layer on fresh regulation or to draft a new bill, but I would like to encourage the government to accelerate implementation of these elements of the act.

My constituents would not like to wait another say year to see itemised comprehensive service charge bills and prompt access to redress. My constituents accept that the streetlights must be maintained, the gutters cleared, and the insurance must be bought. They know that all of this costs money, but what they won't accept and nor should they, is paying more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for less, with no answers and no accountability. Fleur Anderson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fleur Anderson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome this important debate and thank the honourable member for Reigate for securing it very much Reigate for securing it very much on behalf of many, many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, who I surgeries, who write to me, who I meet when I'm out and about in many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town. And I'm speaking Wandsworth Town. And I'm speaking today on behalf of those leaseholders across the country, as well as my constituency, who feel well as my constituency, who feel that they're being let down by the broken system, one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication and substandard services to persist and substandard services to persist unchecked, with limited rights to challenge these changes, leaving people feel like they're fighting people feel like they're fighting this battle on their own.

But we know from the a number of members that are here today, we know from
14:10
Fleur Anderson Portrait Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)
-
-
many other meetings as well that these are issues faced across the country. And so there's something wrong, not just with those individual managing agents that that we're all thinking of today, but also with the system itself. And to raise that issue of regulation, the honourable member just before me raised the issue of regulation. Do we need more layers? But we also need to look at the fact that the current system and the checks and balances within it, and asking people just to go to the first tier tribunal as the last resort is just so daunting and so cumbersome that it's not actually being a proper check on the system.

I really welcome the government's decisive action to tackle long standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the minister who is here in his place today for all the work that he is doing on that and the changes that we know are coming. This is a debate that is full of hope for those changes, making some of the difference ahead of the closure of the government's recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections. I conducted my own service charge consultation in my constituency because I know what a big issue it is for so many developments.

The results were deeply troubling and I have submitted them to the government. More than 200 constituents responded, and I think they speak for hundreds more themselves. Over 90% said that reporting significant reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more, 96% said that they felt that those increases were unjustified. And that goes down to not only the poor communication, but the fact that many of those those charges do seem to be unjustified. They're not isolated cases. As we're hearing in the debate today.

In 2024, service charges rose on average by 11%, which is well above inflation of 2.5% and averaging in my constituency £2,300 a year. I see countless examples of eye watering hikes. For example, one constituent reported that their annual service charge increased from £1,600 a year to £6,660 a year. Another told me that they were sent an additional large bill right before Christmas to claw back more money from an error in their managing agents accounting, and this happens often during the year that the the amount has already risen a lot, and then it will rise a lot more because of extra charges that were made and services that were provided, or in many constituents views not provided.

I too many leaseholders are being ignored by managing agents. They're being charged for services that are substandard or not delivered at all. Cleaning services that show no signs of leaving, leaving the building cleaner, painting in areas that don't need to be painted or are communal areas, or they know the charge would be less gardening services for gardens that don't exist. In one case, one of the most shocking examples from my constituency came from a large development in and they said that they report a revolving door of housing managers inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched, unfamiliar with the building's history.

The managing agents present accounts that simply don't add up. Contractors are paid without checks. Faults go unpenalized, and it's residents who are left to clean up the mess time and time again. The managing agent in question for this. This development has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out and yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill.

The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior every ten years, but nothing happens. It's the same old story again and again. There are six managing agents in my constituency that were named in that consultation many, many times. I'm not going to name them here because it is damaging for the people who are living in those developments. But it's clear that there are some good managing agents and some good landlords, but there are some very bad ones and those are the ones that we need this the new provisions in the bill to provide for and under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, there are proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies, all of which are very, very welcome.

The previous Conservative government had 14 years to act on this, but only passed leasehold reforms and the dying days of the last Parliament that were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes. So I'm very glad that this debate is a chance to talk more about industry regulation and going further on that to welcome the Commonhold bill coming forward as well. My leaseholders in my constituency across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real and the need for reform is urgent.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call David Reed and many congratulations on baby Reuben David Reed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's nice to have his name on record. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank my honourable friend the member for Reigate for bringing it to the Reigate for bringing it to the House's attention. In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, it is rapidly becoming one of East, it is rapidly becoming one of the most frequently raised issues. And I think the biggest issue for me is that people that have worked
14:16
David Reed Portrait David Reed MP (Exmouth and Exeter East, Conservative)
-
-
me is that people that have worked hard, save responsibly and bought a home in good faith are finding themselves trapped in a system that's opaque, unaccountable, and in worst cases, exploitative. Since being elected, I've been inundated. I know that many members will have had the same experiences with complaints about one company in particular, and we all know their name. First. Quartz. It is, by some distance, the most problematic housing management company operating in my constituency, and my office is currently dealing with close to 40 open cases with developments that they manage.

The stories are depressingly consistent. Residents describe unexplained charges, unclear billing, long delays in resolving the simplest issues, and we've heard many of those today. They send long chains of unanswered emails, and they attend my surgeries exhausted and very frustrated when my team contacts first port on behalf, we often wait for an unacceptable amount of time and progress is slow, if at all. Earlier this year, I met with First Port's managing director, along with other members of this House, and I would hope that, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would see me as a chilled out kind of guy.

But I left that meeting with my blood boiling, and I know that other Honourable and Right Honourable members across this House had a similar experience. We are straightforward questions, and what we receive were vague answers, rehearsed corporate language, and no clear commitment to improving customer services. Now a group of MPs will be meeting with First Port again shortly, and I hope that the company has set to work in earnest. I think, on reflection, what angers me most is that many of the people caught up in these issues are elderly.

They feel intimidated by the complexities of the system. They are passed from pillar to post, ignored when they raise legitimate concerns, and they feel like an inconvenience for simply asking what their money is being spent on. Yet when First Port wants payment and this is something that they're very good at, their communication becomes very clear and they are very persistent. Yeah. In several developments, when residents try to move away from First Port's essential financial documents, including sinking fund balances and reconciliation statements were withheld, and in some cases large sums of money were retained for months, preventing new management companies from planning, maintenance or accounting properly.

Local residents directors in my constituency, Karen Wheeler and David Bill. Fierce campaigners have documented delays in fund transfers, missing paperwork and opaque accounting, and Karen eventually gave up trying to reconcile the final balance because, in her words, the spreadsheets were unfathomable. For her. The development. The cost was about £500, which to many of the elderly residents is quite significant. But my honourable friend for Reigate hit the nail on the head when she said the real issue here is the power imbalance.

Residents have no transparency, no clarity and no meaningful route to resolution. And this is despite First port's own code of conduct, promising transparency, value for money and excellent customer services. I think we can all agree that that doesn't stack up. This is not an isolated concern, and it's not a partisan one. Former ministers have highlighted complaints from companies such as First Port, have been consistently associated with high charges and poor service. The BBC has reported homeowners being billed for things like terrorism insurance without any context.

While basic ground maintenance wasn't being completed. More than 30 MPs have now written jointly to First Port demanding action. We all know this. The problem is structural. Far too many homeowners are locked into contracts they never chose, forced to pay for service charges with poorly maintained communal areas with no ability to change providers. When these services fail. For homeowners on private estates, the so-called Fleecehold estates. Many are effectively paying twice. And we've heard that once through council tax and once through these.

These services charges. Leaseholders trying to sell their homes frequently face long delays and eye watering administration fees. And what should be a proud milestone? Owning or selling a home becomes a source of stress and financial burden. Now, we've heard as well legal protections do exist, but they are not enough. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act passed last year will bring mandatory transparency through. I've got one minute left. I've got. I'll make my final points. We'll bring mandatory transparency through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges and easier routes to take over management.

But these reforms are not yet implemented. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to know why and I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when these things will be implemented and what new legislation will be brought in to ensure these people are protected. I want to finish with this, and it's one that I think we all agree on, that residents under these schemes do not need more consultations. They need action. And this Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must deliver. It is up to members, if they wish to take an intervention. If wish to take an intervention. If they do, they do get an extra Pitcher.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Often I hear the same. Story across. Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Bills that jump without Axholme. Bills that jump without warning, warning charges people cannot control. Invoices that are hard to decipher, work that arrives hard to decipher, work that arrives late or not at all. And if you pay for services, you should know what for services, you should know what you are paying for, the standard you can expect, and how to put things right when they go wrong.

Now, there has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, there has. Been some. Progress on what has been coined as fleecehold and on the rights of homeowners. I welcome steps to homeowners. I welcome steps to protect leaseholders from unjustified service charges, and to raise standards in managing the raise standards in managing the agent sector. But to many people, they still feel powerless when a
14:22
Lee Pitcher Portrait Lee Pitcher MP (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, Labour)
-
-
bill lands. Change must fight on the ground. Many households pay state rent charges on top of council taxes, we've heard. And in the worst cases there are excesses, excessive or unexplained fees, charges for services that would normally be provided by local authorities, arbitrary administration costs and fees imposed during the sale. Too many discover too late that roads, verges and play areas are not adopted. No family should be ambushed by a large one off bill for works that they could not foresee.

Clear pre-sell, disclosure and sensible reserve planning are absolutely essential. Now there are good actors, resident led management companies, responsible freeholders and professional agents already published clear breakdowns and engage on early on works early. They should feel backed by a system that raises the floor and rewards good practice. So I ask the minister today for things first to bring forward secondary legislation, promptly define what insurance fees are permitted and hidden commissions, and require standardised, transparent statements so residents can see where every single pound goes.

Second, set professional standards for managing agents, mandatory qualifications and a robust code of practice that will lift the quality bar and give residents confidence that estates are run properly. Third, fix the major works regime, provide clear pre-sale information, require early engagement on big projects, planned sensible reserves and put safeguards in place so households are not hit by avoidable spikes. And fourth, make make redress fast and affordable resource. The first tier tribunal and published simple guidance so residents can challenge unreasonable costs without needing to have deep pockets.

A small number of timely rulings, I am sure, will reset behaviour across entire developments. Now, my constituents in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for fairness. Bills that are clear charges that are reasonable services delivered as promised. And I have set up a number of street surgeries to go to those particular areas where I'm getting the most number of comments around this at the moment, so that I can hear their voices and feed them directly back to the Minister and the department as we move forward with the legislation, with prompt secondary legislation, legislation, tight definitions and insurance, professional standards for agents, and an accessible tribunal system.

We can turn a confusing and stressful system into one that treats residents with with respect and provides peace of mind. Honourable member. I most certainly will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful the honourable member talks about secondary legislation in making suggestions legislation in making suggestions about what should happen next. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act provides protections for for provides protections for for leaseholders on private, private managed estates when it comes to them having a the ability to go to them having a the ability to go to a tribunal to challenge management charges. Does he think that that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charges. Does he think that that ought to exist also for freeholders? I think he makes an absolute valid point, and it's certainly something that I think the Minister should listen to today and take into account as we go forwards. So into account as we go forwards. So I'm going to finish with this. I was at my concluding summary actually, and that is our home actually, and that is our home should be places where we get to dream. They shouldn't be places where we have to have nightmares.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Gagan Mohindra. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Local Government Select Committee, I wanted to bring the House attention that we did in looking into property management companies in the summer of this year. I know the chairman of the committee and the member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green would have been here if she wasn't already committed to a Westminster already committed to a Westminster Hall debate at the same time, so I wish to send her apologies. Like many in this. Oh, can I thank my honourable friend from Reigate for securing this really important debate.

Like many in this House, my residents have been affected by property charges and the lack of transparency that is given by certain companies. And we've already heard about Firstport, and I wish to just expand on that in my constituency in Penn Place in
14:28
Gagan Mohindra Portrait Mr Gagan Mohindra MP (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Rickmansworth. Firstport look, after about 140 apartments within after about 140 apartments within an estate. Many of my constituents live in there, have contacted me regarding the ever increasing service charges that they are being service charges that they are being given, having seen their monthly payments more than double on occasions, they received no occasions, they received no communication either as to why the increase is needed or the the increase is needed or the the justification for it in the first place. This is placing extortionate pressure, both financially and emotionally on those living there.

We all are very aware of the cost of living of our communities at the of living of our communities at the moment, both with council tax and energy prices, license fees for energy prices, license fees for renting properties where applicable renting properties where applicable in certain London boroughs, many of them my residents, have been unable to sell or move due to people not wanting to purchase properties that wanting to purchase properties that come with these ever increasing surcharges. We've already heard that earlier today.

This is not that earlier today. This is not just an issue in my constituency. I have worked with many of my fellow have worked with many of my fellow Conservative MPs on this issue, and I know this is actually a properly a proper cross-party issue. I have a proper cross-party issue. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, who I know will continue to, to ensure that this issue is addressed and build on the legacy from my previous government that we started, and I know that he will continue to push forward and hopefully at speed, and I look forward to that commitment when the Minister responds to this debate.

Alongside these expensive charges, though, Firstport are not even providing what I would argue is an adequate property management service. One of my constituents made me aware that carpets were not being replaced and walls not being repainted. There is also a high turnover property managers, which is ineffective in maintaining the estate, and I think it's symptomatic of what I would argue is a poorly run company. When we were in government, we brought in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which would require transparency over leasehold of service charges, which would allow leaseholders such as those in my constituents in Penn Place to scrutinise and challenge increases if there are unreasonable.

While this act has received Royal Assent, it is yet to be brought fully into force. I understand some of the reasons behind that, but I would urge the Minister to, within his capacity to get moving on this, and I'm sure he will give us that reassurance a bit later. In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Minister what assurances he can provide my constituents and many across the country that they are constantly facing service charges, increases with no increases of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

service provided, and how we can better protect those residents? Thank you. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm so pleased that we're taking the time today to debate property service charges in depth across my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, residents are Cambridgeshire, residents are drowning in soaring bills, deferred maintenance, opaque accounts and a carousel of management companies carousel of management companies passing the buck. These charges don't exist in a vacuum. They sit alongside dodgy contracts, alongside dodgy contracts, conflicts of interest and unadopted roads, a structural failure that leaves residents feeling trapped leaves residents feeling trapped and powerless.

Since being elected, I've had so many constituents come to me with leasehold horror stories. to me with leasehold horror stories. The service charge hikes, of course, are brought up most in one case, a £4,600 charge in 2017 was due to increase to over £9,000 this year. In a property where many residents
14:30
Sam Carling Portrait Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
In a property where many residents are retired and on a fixed income. That's not to mention a lack of transparency over what the charges were for. In this instance, residents pointed out that a £6,000 charge for staffing was levied during a time where there were no permanent on site managers. I want to give credit where it's due. When I met with that management company for an explanation, they did hold their hands up and acknowledged things needed to improve and have since followed up with residents.

Other companies, however, are not quite as reflective. And having thought about this, I won't name them in my speech because I don't want to blight the developments in question. But I must warn these companies that that that is an option in the future if we don't see improvements. So one development in my constituency, the managing agent did not respond positively to my letter setting out residents concerns. And this development is displaying what I've come to call the Four horsemen of the managing agent. Hikes in service charges, inadequate maintenance, poor communication with residents and a lack of financial transparency.

In a previous intervention in Parliament, I said residents had informed me of 150% increase in the service charge in two years. In a very blunt reply, the managing agent said that was wrong and the real increase was only a doubling in four years, which they considered reasonable. I don't, and nor do my affected constituents who have pointed out that if we factor in various additional costs that used to be in the service charge but were then separated out, it's closer to the increase they cited.

And maintenance work doesn't get done. When residents took me around the development this year, I saw for myself the shoddily constructed steps creating hazards, plus defective drainage, malfunctioning lighting, and so much more. Responsibility for some of the issues isn't clear, and the developer should be taking on some of the issues where they arose shortly after development. But a lack of clarity means that residents are dealing with onerous back and forths where responsibility is forever passed on and maintenance issues seem like they will never be solved.

Just today, a resident described to me how there was a rat infestation at one point and a contractor was apparently paid £30,000 of residents money to resolve it. They didn't. The residents association was later able to sort it out, but not before this huge sum of their money was frittered away. And that brings me on to the poor communication, highlighting the above, as well as concerns from residents about service charge breakdowns. I asked the managing agents what they would do going forward to improve communication, and I expected an answer that pushed back, but at least agreed to look into the concerns I had raised.

I didn't even get that the response said it all. We do not consider that communication requires improvement. Then we come to the fourth horseman, a lack of financial transparency. I've been told by residents that they are contractually bound to an insurance policy with a £5,000 excess, making it obviously completely unusable. And a resident show me figures for one block, which show a total insurance premium charge of over £60,000, of which just under £20,000, around 30% was commission in a confusing brokerage set up, with much of that going to a company linked to the managing agent.

In some quite clear ways, which really smacks of a conflict of interest or worse. And there are so many other examples of this. Another development in my constituency for three of the last five years, accounts were provided to residents, and in the most recent two years, accounts have not been provided at all, despite much pushing from residents and leaseholders. So it isn't just leaseholders in flats either that are affected by service charges. I haven't Fleecehold scandal sweeping up so many of my residents in the newly built developments of Hampton Unadopted roads are rife, as others have mentioned, in new developments, meaning residents are paying twice for their local areas to be maintained, once in their council tax and once in a separate service charge.

I counted the number of roads that need to be adopted but are without a section 38 agreement, meaning there's a long way to go before they are in the Peterborough part of my constituency, there are 289 of them, mostly housing roads. That's an unjust extra service charge for thousands of residents in Hampton, in Stanground, in Orton and elsewhere because roads aren't being adopted, and some suggestions have been proposed to help tackle this problem. The Home Builders Federation, for example, have put forward some useful suggestions around common adoptable standards and mandatory adoption by public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authorities. I will give way. Members have raised this issue about adoption of roads. Obviously roads physical roads. Are easier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To define. There are parts of private estates that are much more that do are only private for that estate. are only private for that estate. But does he not agree that there is a challenge with the current financial situation? Councils will have to to adopt. They need some. have to to adopt. They need some. You have to have some money to do that. So that could be, under the current law, a big hit on those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current law, a big hit on those leaseholders to pay that fee up front for the council to adopt. It's a. Very useful point from my honourable friend and I should have clarified that figure I gave had removed the private roads that weren't supposed to be adopted. This is purely the ones that are This is purely the ones that are having this issue. And as my honourable friend says, councils are in a really difficult financial situation. The precarious state of situation. The precarious state of local government finances, after 14 years of cuts and freezes certainly haven't helped.

But we've also got a lot of councils blaming developers and developers, blaming councils and an increasing divergence, I feel, between what council planning departments are council planning departments are requiring to grant permission for development and what the highways department have said councils is willing to adopt. And that's particularly vexing, actually, when there's not one council, when there's two in a two tier system there's two in a two tier system with planning at one level and highways at another. And so I hope local government reorganisation local government reorganisation will help there.

But this is happening in Unitaries, too, and we need to explore ways to deal with that. Ultimately, these are symptoms of a wider issue in how the system treats freeholders and leaseholders alike. The Leasehold and Commonhold reform Bill will be a vital step forward. I'm pleased the government is committed to ending leasehold for new developments. From my experience, that change can't come soon enough. A key advantage of Commonhold becoming the default tenure is that managing agents will be appointed by and responsible to leaseholders, by and responsible to leaseholders, rather than absentee corporate freeholders.

Of course, the situation with managing agents therefore still needs to be improved and I'm very supportive of mandatory regulation as a core step toward that, which I hope the Minister will comment on. To conclude, this debate comes in a week of real progress. The renters' week of real progress. The renters' rights Act has finally become law, finally giving tenants the fair treatment they deserve. So let's treatment they deserve. So let's keep up that progress, because nobody should have to pay through the nose for poor service, broken promises, and a system that puts promises, and a system that puts profit before residents.
14:36
14:38
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
or freeholders who control their lived environments. These problems are particularly acute in my are particularly acute in my experience, for elderly and more vulnerable residents, many of whom live in retirement developments and depend on the professionalism of depend on the professionalism of those entrusted with managing their estates. Yet, far too often what they experience is mismanagement, they experience is mismanagement, confusion and financial anxiety. To illustrate the scale of the issue, illustrate the scale of the issue, I want to draw on two cases from my own constituency of Surrey Heath, which encapsulates these national failings.

First, Mytchett Heath, a failings. First, Mytchett Heath, a retirement complex managed by Cognatum Estates, a not for profit developer and operator based in the developer and operator based in the south and south east of England. And then secondly the courtyard in Camberley residential building, currently undergoing cladding remediation. In effect, two remediation. In effect, two scandals rolled into one at the courtyard to. To begin with, one of my constituents, Sharon, has seen my constituents, Sharon, has seen her annual service charges rise by £1,394 between 2017 and 2025, paying £1,394 between 2017 and 2025, paying a total of £22,727 over that period.

a total of £22,727 over that period. On top of council tax. As other members have already said. In 2021 members have already said. In 2021 alone, her bill rose by 38%, with no clear explanation. When she sought answers from pinnacle, the managing agent, the responses were slow, incomplete and unhelpful. She's been left anxious, powerless and deeply mistrustful of those managing her building. At Mytchett Heath, residents face an equally troubling pattern, and I'm very grateful to the honourable member for North Dorset and indeed the honourable member for Honiton and Sidmouth, who have been supporting me in my investigations of that particular organisation.

Maintenance costs appear without warning and without justification, and worse still, the managing fee. At Mytchett Heath, the basic charge residents pay for estate management has increased by 75% since 2019, an average of 10.7% per year. That far exceeds, as all of us know, inflation, wage growth and pension increases. And yet residents have been given no clear explanation of how those rises are to be justified, nor any transparent breakdown of where their money is going. Now, at present, there is no effective oversight mechanism for managing agents or freeholders.

While residents can, in theory, appeal to the Industry ombudsman, many are deterred from that process because it is too long, too complex and often too costly. What's particularly concerning for my residents at Heath is that the Managing director of Cognatum Estates, Mr. John Lavin, also sits on the board of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, the very trade body that purports to regulate and uphold standards across that particular sector. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a textbook case of marking one's own homework.

Elderly residents, meanwhile, are left financially trapped, emotionally exhausted and with nowhere to turn. The human cost of all of this is immense stress, anxiety, depleted savings, and a complete loss of peace of mind. These are retirees spending their later years poring over spreadsheets and unanswered emails when they should be enjoying the comfort and security they have worked for. Now, back in April, I met with the board of Cognatum Estates to hear their side of the story, and I was told that some residents were encouraging others to protest.

And in a recent letter from Cognatum CEO, I heard that complaints were in fact part of a coordinated campaign to denigrate the organisation. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are not political agitators, and I should know because I've met enough of them. These are elderly homeowners who are asking basic questions about the bills that they receive. They deserve answers, not accusations. So can I ask the minister, just in conclusion, three very simple questions. When can leaseholders, particularly elderly residents, expect to be able to receive clear, itemised explanations of how their service charges are calculated? Second, when managing agents fail to communicate or justify large increases, such as the 70% rise at Mytchett Heath's managing fee since 2019, what meaningful sanctions might they face? And finally, will the government review the governance of trade associations such as the Association of Retirement Housing Managers to ensure genuine independence and oversight, rather than industry insiders marking their own homework?
14:41
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Independent)
-
-
Chris Hinchliff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indefensible. And generally enraging issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And generally enraging issues facing my constituents in north east Hertfordshire. In many cases, these charges amount to little more than a form of parasitic than a form of parasitic exploitation of ordinary people by absentee landlords and businesses, and it has been allowed to fester and it has been allowed to fester for far too long. Across the country, 5 million people are trapped in a broken system that leaves them beholden to obscure, often overseas companies with a often overseas companies with a licence to cream off their hard earned earnings with almost complete impunity.

They have gotten complete impunity. They have gotten away with it for years because leaseholders simply are not able to effectively challenge this effectively challenge this unfairness. As so often in Britain today, wealth is translated directly into power and ordinary directly into power and ordinary people are left without any real sense of agency over something as basic as their month to month finances. The issue of unfair and arbitrary property service charges is impacting every corner of north east Hertfordshire, from Royston to Tewin and Baldock to Buntingford from Fleecehold Estates, where constituents purchased a new build property under freehold conditions, property under freehold conditions, but then found that, in their own words, they are then hostages to the whims and designs of service companies who can charge any amount of service fee they wish and without redress, making a mockery of the notion of freehold to housing association tenants paying eye watering fees.

Yet left with neglected and inadequate services, residents in retirement accommodation facing extortionate maintenance costs, leaving families struggling to pay care fees and trapped with property that has little resale value, and leaseholders facing huge hikes in service charges brought by freeholders. Yet seeing little evidence of the maintenance they are supposedly paying for, one constituent put the experience plainly they are committing service charge abuse and they are making people's lives miserable. I have previously criticised privatised water companies and housing developers for raking in vast profits despite substandard delivery.

But in many ways they pale in comparison with the sheer audacity of the leasehold scandal. These are issues rooted in feudal concepts of property ownership and those trapped paying these fees, with next to no ability to challenge or escape them are, in effect, still suffering, still suffering from a form of economic serfdom where those with the right title deeds can levy private taxes on ordinary people that bear practically no relation to services rendered. Nearly a thousand years after William's conquest, I think the English have suffered under this Norman yoke quite enough.

The government's own Competition and Markets Authority found no persuasive evidence that consumers receive anything in return for the ground rents they pay in communities like Letchworth. That rings painfully true. We should all welcome the government's recent victory in the High Court over wealthy private interests, who threw millions at trying to block vital reforms. I also welcome ministers commitment to finishing the job of reforming leasehold, and I look forward to supporting further steps to end this scandal once and for all.

The solution is clear municipal estate ownership and the ability to move to Commonhold as quickly as reasonably possible. Home ownership should mean owning the bricks and mortar and come with a sense of freedom, not exposure to exploitation. No one should be left behind as we put this injustice to bed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the broader campaign for a charter of community empowerment. Many of its principles are relevant to today's debate. If this government is to achieve that historic Labour mission of redistributing not just wealth but power into the hands of the majority, and in today's context, this must mean trusting ordinary people, a more capable of upkeeping their own estates, managing their and managing their homes fairly than offshore firms or the landowning aristocracy.

For once, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to rain down a series of detailed demands on the minister. I know he faces a complex legal situation left by the previous administration. Today, I only want to urge him to cut this Gordian knot in this Parliament and give my constituents a straightforward way out of being forever tied to service fees by unaccountable companies. The economic benefits to our high streets, desperately needed in villages and market towns like those I represent, would be enormous, as thousands of families across the country find their disposable income is no longer slashed every month by charges that cannot be justified.

The resistance the government has faced from the freehold lobby should only renew our sense of urgency. Clinging desperately to their ill gotten gains and the sacred right to turn hard working people into cash cows, I am sure we will see more appeals and outcry from vested interests, and the government should know our party and millions outside this place are united behind them. After the High Court's ruling, the Residential Freehold Association warned the decision opens the door for government to intervene in markets far beyond the leasehold sector or, in other words, the terrible spectre that democracy may be empowered to secure the public good before private profit.

Well, as my constituents lose out in an economy rigged against ordinary people, one that rewards wealthy property owners and unearned income rather than those who go out and work for a living. I say, quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply, I hope they're right. Lewis Cocking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I conveying to my friend the member for Reigate on securing this member for Reigate on securing this important debate, my honourable friend. I understand more than most the issues around property service charge because I'm a leaseholder where I live in Hoddesdon, a quarter of my constituents live in
14:47
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
quarter of my constituents live in flats or maisonettes, and 25% of the property transactions in Broxbourne last year were leasehold. But shockingly, as we've heard so far in this debate, what is hard to find from any leasehold AB is that they have a good. They don't have a good word to say about their landlord or their service charge. Landlords and solicitors do not provide enough information to new residents, and far too often prospective residents are not properly informed about how much service charges have increased in the previous years before they move in.

Then they're hit with huge rises down the line, and it is also unclear where the money is going. A resident in Waltham Cross told me the service charge has skyrocketed from around £800 to £6000 for each leaseholder. Yet living conditions remain extremely dire. Residents here face ongoing issues including trespassers, mould, broken security doors, mice infestations and squatters. Our building also has several defects, including weak floors, fire safety issues, ongoing leakages and at one point my flat became uninhabitable after a severe leak which took several months to resolve.

I hear these stories again and again from constituents who have come to me at the last contact of resort, after months and sometimes years of neglect to their property in that particular case. I met with the management company involved, Darren Paffey, earlier this year, but nothing has changed. Whether it's RMG first, Poole, Bampton's, Innate Homes, Warwick Estates. Leaseholders deserve better from their landlords and management companies, who purely focus on collecting even higher service charges for worse services. But by far the worst treatment of leaseholders in my constituency has been at the hands of, and I hope the minister is listening to this particular point.

Labour run Enfield Council. I was first contacted by residents on the Whitefields estate back in May last year, and what I heard left me outraged, completely out of the blue. Enfield Council were demanding up to £50,000 from each leaseholder for urgent repairs. Roofs were earmarked to be replaced that had never had a leak. Windows would be fixed even though there had been used for years without issue. And understandably, my residents immediately asked what about my service charge? Well, as the Leasehold Advisory Service says, many landlords collect money out of the service charge for sinking funds to help cover the cost of exactly this kind of major works, but not Enfield Council.

They expect my constituents to stump up all of the cash, even after rising the service charge that year. And as far as the residents are concerned, not sending a single penny on the estate in decades, the Whitefield Residents Association and Tenants Association, in particular leaseholder Nicky McCabe, have worked incredibly hard to bring the community together in response to this issue, but they simply demanded straightforward answers and they are straightforward questions, but were met with confusing statements from the representatives from Enfield Council, who for them, it was just far too easy to say that's not my job.

And I mean, I attended the meeting, Madam Deputy Speaker, and there were a number of directors there from Enfield Council, all on significant sums of money, and they could not answer basic questions from my constituents about how much they would have to pay, about what was actually going to change in the estate. And the communication was absolutely shocking. Their fight is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support. Well, my friend give way. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. I thank my honourable friend for giving way, and I'm sure many members have those experiences of members have those experiences of having to attend groups of meetings with residents who are at their wits end, at the end of processes, wits end, at the end of processes, of trying to resolve issues which are causing them so much anxiety. We have an example in Fylde, which We have an example in Fylde, which is actually pre the management company where an estate has been developed, flooded during the construction, flooded twice since, and now the estate company is desperate to get it into a management company to transfer all the flood risk liability to that company.

Do they agree? That is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

company. Do they agree? That is the kind of thing that will just cause further problems down the line? I completely. Agree with my honourable friend makes an excellent point for his makes an excellent point for his stand up for his constituents. This is a really important point. We've all probably as members across this House as constituency MPs, gone to meetings, and these companies in particular are unable to answer the particular are unable to answer the most basic questions and are paid considerable amounts of money, and considerable amounts of money, and they cannot answer simple questions from constituents about how much money they're going to have to pay, where the liability sits and what where the liability sits and what work they're going to do.

I will give way. talking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About, and I certainly agree. That good. Communication is absolutely important, but it was his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Under Margaret Thatcher that. meant. We had got leaseholders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We had got leaseholders. Mixed with council tenants. And so where council. Has to improve the property. They do. Need to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Need to. Go to leaseholders. Who own their property for their shareholders. So there is always going. To. Be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be. A tension there. And he has to, I think, acknowledge that when we have pepper potted. Estates. That's going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be a reality. Not notwithstanding that he obviously. Needs to fight for proper information for his constituents. The honourable member for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member for that intervention. I mean, I fully support the right to buy. It was a good policy and well, I'm just stating that it was a good policy stating that it was a good policy and I supported that. She makes an interesting point around the communication has got to be there. communication has got to be there. And as I've mentioned in my case, Enfield Council do not collect a sinking fund, which can go some of the way to mitigating mitigating some of the issues that she and I have both raised around that communication, around asking residents to stump up large, large bills in terms of when they are leaseholders that can mitigate some of that, some of those issues.

We need to have more transparency. We need to have better regulation and we need to ensure, and I agree with honourable members from across this chamber who have who have made the points around councils should adopt outside amenity spaces. And we need to see real improvements around the way leaseholders are treated. Abolishing ground rent is a good first step and the government needs to get on and deliver it. I also agree that Commonhold must be more widespread, but is by no means a silver bullet and right for everyone.

I urge the government to get on with it, improve the lives of hundreds of my constituents, and urgently implement more of the Leasehold Reform Act 2024 and get on with those improvements and help hundreds of our constituents from across the chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with an immediate five minute time limit. Julie Minns. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And can I thank the. Honourable member from Reigate for bringing this debate and enabling members from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from. Across the House to give voice to our constituents like mine in Carlisle, who, quite frankly, are Carlisle, who, quite frankly, are fed up. They're fed up with being charged hundreds of pounds a year in estate management fees for services that are either not delivered or delivered poorly. They're fed up with asking for transparency and getting vague spreadsheets instead of receipts for the services they claim they've been told have been delivered, and been told have been delivered, and they're fed up with being told they have no choice, no voice, and no way to challenge it.

One of the way to challenge it. One of the first pieces of casework I had as a member on my election last year was member on my election last year was did concern Firstport, and one of the more recent cases concerned another estate management company, another estate management company, gateway. Different companies. The same problem, a problem with charges for grass cutting, street cleaning and lighting maintenance all quite expected charges, one all quite expected charges, one might say. But too often these charges are levied while the grass overgrows the rubbish isn't picked overgrows the rubbish isn't picked up, the roads remain unlit, so residents rightly ask for proof of where their money has been going, and quite consistently, when they're when they do so, they get a list of costs, not invoices, no evidence, no accountability, and in some cases, the same service appears more than once under different names.

It's confusing, it's opaque, and it's unfair. I do want to acknowledge the work begun by the last government and continued by our government. I was pleased to see swift action in the early months of the government to implement key provisions of the Leasehold and Reform Freehold Reform Act, and I welcome the government's wider programme of reform, removing the threat of forfeiture, tackling abuse by managing agents and implementing the Law Commission's recommendations on right to manage. But we must go further, especially
14:57
Julie Minns Portrait Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)
-
-
as we build new homes. The government's House build agenda. Agenda is ambitious and is rightly so. We need more homes and we need them quickly. But we also need to them quickly. But we also need to make sure that when people move into these homes, they aren't being ripped off by management companies ripped off by management companies they did not choose. It's not enough just to get the bricks and mortar down. We need to make sure that the regulation around property charges is constructed properly too.

charges is constructed properly too. We need enforceable standards for transparency. If a company charges for a service, they must be for a service, they must be required to show that it was delivered and provide proof of what it cost. If the grass overgrows, if it cost. If the grass overgrows, if the litter piles up. If the roads remain unlit, residents should not remain unlit, residents should not be expected to pay. We also need a clear route to redress. At the clear route to redress.

At the moment, too many people feel trapped, tied to a management company they didn't choose and with company they didn't choose and with no meaningful way to hold them to account. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not about undermining the sector. It's about fairness. It's about restoring trust. It's about making restoring trust. It's about making sure that when people buy a home, they're not buying into a system that takes advantage of them. We've made a start, but if we're serious about protecting homeowners, we need to finish the job, and we need to bring cowboy estate management companies to heel.
14:58
Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis MP (Bexleyheath and Crayford, Labour)
-
-
Daniel Francis. tribute to the honourable member for Reigate for securing today's debate and setting out the deep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns that many of us see from our constituents relating to property service charges. We honestly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Don't have a clue what we are paying for. These were the words written to me by a constituent who lives in a development where lives in a development where service charges increased from £1,800 a year to £3,200 per year. £1,800 a year to £3,200 per year. Others described themselves as cash cows and Speaker financial hardship to those trapped in their clutches. to those trapped in their clutches. Since being elected, I've received countless emails from constituents countless emails from constituents across Bexleyheath, Crayford and Slade Green who are struggling with rising service charges, lack of rising service charges, lack of transparency and poor communication from managing agents.

One constituent of mine, a pensioner, constituent of mine, a pensioner, had to borrow money from from her adult children, is now considering selling her car if another selling her car if another unexpected bill arrives. Another asked to spread an additional bill over monthly payments and was told over monthly payments and was told they would be charged £60 for the trouble. I've been holding public meetings with residents across my meetings with residents across my constituency this year to discuss these issues, and these meetings have seen large turnouts and residents, understandably, at the residents, understandably, at the end of their tether.

I accept some increase in service charges can be explained by rising insurance costs, explained by rising insurance costs, building safety costs and other economic factors, but other items and service charge bills beggar belief. £1,000 a year for CCTV when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there is no CCTV. Service. Charges for a gym that hadn't been built. Built service charges been built. Built service charges for a 24 over seven concierge, which operates 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and which operates 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and £5,000 a year to empty one dog bin, which members of the public living

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which members of the public living outside the estate are using on. A. Communal open space. Despite these costs, maintenance often these costs, maintenance often remains poor. I'd like to focus on one example, which is the Eastside Quarter development in Bexleyheath Quarter development in Bexleyheath on our former council civic offices built a few years ago. The built a few years ago. The development was originally managed by DGC, who were then bought by Firstport, who were relieved of their duties and have now been replaced by a new managing agent.

replaced by a new managing agent. The directors of Management Company took action to remove Firstport in 2024, due to concerns of 2024, due to concerns of performance levels and lack of financial transparency raised by residents. First port were responsible for producing audited accounts for the years 20, 22, 23 and 24. But in the most recent and 24. But in the most recent correspondence I've received, they failed to do so. As a result, the developer is legally pursuing these accounts at their cost.

Firstport were unable to provide any funds on account to the new managing agent. The new managing agent correspondence to me stated the service charge bank account was empty and that many suppliers were owed substantial sums, with many of them having withdrawn services as a result, and continuing management on the estate was only possible because the developer provided substantial funding to the new managing agent to enable it to pay suppliers, and I've seen similar issues at Hangers Close in Bexleyheath and at Vicars Green in Crayford, where Firstport have attended public meeting and where I believe we are making some progress.

I've seen that some of the fault lies, in my view, with the local authority, who agreed a planning development back in 2009 where residents took on responsibility for the roads, the lighting and that public space which includes that bin which is then costed back to the residents. I welcome the government's consultation on plans to strengthen protections over charges and services, and hope will bring forward measures to support my constituents. I was proud to sponsor my honourable friend from Uxbridge and South Ruislip, managing Agents regulation Bill, and I support those calls from across the chamber to the need for clear management standards and regulation.

And I'd welcome the Minister's comments on these matters and the measures to be brought forward in secondary legislation. I support the government's work within this area, but will continue to press that. We need further action to empower residents and deal with service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charges to protect residents across the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency. Joe Powell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Joe Powell. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and I join others in congratulating the honourable member for Reigate for honourable member for Reigate for securing this debate. I know there will be leaseholders across the
15:02
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-
will be leaseholders across the country watching this very closely, because the cost of being a leaseholder has contributed to the cost of living challenges that so many of our constituents have faced for such a long time. My leaseholder action group in Kensington and Bayswater, which the minister kindly met with recently, regularly shares stories of escalating, unaccountable and untransparent service charges levied by managing agents that they have no control over. At the worst, the current system can represent a cartel with a broken market in which competition between managing agents is undermined by monopoly type relationships with some freeholders, and a broken connection between those that pay the bills and those that deliver the services.

And the impact can be devastating. One of my constituents, Adriana, has taken her provider, her housing provider, to tribunal three separate times simply to get clarity on how her service charge was calculated. Each time she's won. But they are still not providing the information and they are now indeed offering to withdraw all the charges rather than provide that information. That is not transparency, because what it does is rely on the assumption that the other residents, many of whom are elderly or financially strained, will not have the resources to challenge.

And yet, rather than give up. Adriana now supports other residents in helping them understand their rights and how to contest these unfair practices. Her determination is admirable, but it should not fall to residents themselves to protect one another from a system that is supposed to protect them. Another group of residents who speak to me regularly about these issues in a building called Shaftesbury Place, have been hit with crippling increases to their charges after a 2,489% increase in their building insurance premium.

That annual cost up from £15,000 to £375,000 a year, has been passed directly to the leaseholders through their service charges. The housing provider says the freeholder procured the insurance. The residents have seen evidence suggesting otherwise, but the confusion over who procured the insurance and how that premium was calculated has left leaseholders caught in the middle. The justification appears to rest on a fire risk assessment that many residents believe is flawed, but the result is that ordinary homeowners, including shared ownership, homeowners trying to climb the ladder, have been left with unaffordable bills and no clear line of accountability for how these costs have been allowed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to spiral. I will. And the honourable gentleman for expounding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expounding. So clearly the problems that are in common with my elderly residents in Air Valley and Sutton Court in Bingley, where they too have seen above inflation rises in service above inflation rises in service charge. Lack of transparency about the accounts and no evidence to the accounts and no evidence to justify them. So, would my honourable friend agree with me that it's now time that we did licence and bring in stronger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

licence and bring in stronger regulation of these managing agents like Firstport. I thank her for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that intervention, and I agree entirely that there is now an overwhelming case for introducing mandatory case for introducing mandatory professional standards, which I know the government is bringing forward, and to consider what forward, and to consider what regulation might look like, whether that's a new regulator or expanding on the current system. But it's on the current system. But it's clear that some of those suggestions that the government has consulted on in their leaseholder consulted on in their leaseholder protection, the charges on services consultation have the potential to really deliver for residents like really deliver for residents like hers and mine, and that includes a right to veto your property agent.

right to veto your property agent. And I hope that that can come in at a threshold level that will work in places like my constituency, where with a large number of overseas and absent owners, getting to high thresholds can be challenging. So I hope the threshold can be accessible. So I know my constituents would appreciate hearing from the minister or from a different minister later. Our progress on tackling those building insurance issues that obviously for particularly for metropolitan Member of Parliament will be a big issue.

This must, of course, go hand in hand with continuing on the path to full reform of the system. I was delighted with the High Court decision to comprehensively dismiss challenges brought to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. That is a vital step that will unlock progress on implementing reforms that make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold, and I hope it will smooth the way for the new bill that will deliver on our manifesto.

Commitment to leaseholders to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament. I'm incredibly proud of that commitment and I know the millions of leaseholders watching want to see that delivered to something previous government's promised but failed to deliver. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government have already taken decisive action to dramatically improve the rights of 4.6 million private rented households in England, abolishing no fault eviction, increasing security and tenancies and ensuring safe and healthy homes for all.

This government have taken action to dramatically improve the rights of 5 million social rented households in England, bringing our ABS law into force to guarantee emergency repairs in a statutory time frame. And now we have the opportunity to deliver, to deliver on our promise to the 5 million leasehold properties, to.
15:08
Dave Robertson Portrait Dave Robertson MP (Lichfield, Labour)
-
-
Dave Robertson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Place on record my thanks. To the. Honourable member for Reigate for bringing this debate and indeed the Backbench Business Committee the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. And I think we can all hear from the number of members in the chamber today that this is a problem across the entire country, but it certainly is for people in Lichfield, Burntwood and the Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages. In the time that I have, I'd just like to focus on one of the estates where this is an issue.

the estates where this is an issue. The Roman Heights estate in the village of Street Hay on the edge of Lichfield. People who live in that estate know just how difficult that estate know just how difficult managing agents can be. I've had dozens of households get in touch to tell me about the appalling to tell me about the appalling service that they've received from their managing agent, who I won't name, but I'm sure it will be the name, but I'm sure it will be the first name that we all think about.

Over the summer, I have held a town Over the summer, I have held a town hall with residents, and I heard the same thing repeatedly over and over again, Bills from management over again, Bills from management that were coming through completely irregularly, sometimes three Bills for three years in the space of for three years in the space of three months, which is interesting and absolutely no transparency about the level of charge demands about the level of charge demands to come up with huge sums of money at a moment's notice.

And all the while basic maintenance like while basic maintenance like cutting grass just not being done. It left residents wondering just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what exactly they were paying for. Honourable friend absolutely Nadia Whittome Honourable friend. Thank Right honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Right honourable friend also from Staffordshire for giving way on that point. I've got a constituent who got in touch with me to say it genuinely feels like they're stealing money from us. Another one said I just feel like we are a cash cow for these we are a cash cow for these companies. Well, my honourable friend agree with me that if managing agents and companies want to continue these services, they to continue these services, they must increase transparency and make things more regular for their customers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable friends right. Right honourable friend is a very, very good friend and quite often might have seen speeches before a given, have seen speeches before a given, but hasn't seen this one. And it's a perfect segue into my next point that transparency is so important. that transparency is so important. When I surveyed residents in in the the affected estate, 85% of the affected estate, 85% of residents told me that billing was either poor or very poor. 85%, 79% either poor or very poor.

85%, 79% told me that the management of the estate was poor or very poor. Now I have written to that management company and I am looking forward to meeting them because their written response is simply not good enough. Would you allow? Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you allow? Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just much like my friend from Just much like my friend from Staffordshire, I have constituents who are under the same management company who even trying to use mechanisms through the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, using the section 21 request to see things have been ignored, have been dismissed and quite often are given incorrect information. So I suppose the question I wonder if my friend would agree with is when the minister sums up whether he can talk a little bit about the the the technical measures for holding these organisations accountable and why they're not working as well, because enforcement of the existing rules ought to be enough and whether or not they should be changed.

But there are mechanisms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available that that my constituents are trying to access that are simply not working either. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for the for the intervention. He's very well appraised over this specific issue, but I think part of the issue, but I think part of the issue we may be facing is that he's referring to an Act of Parliament, which is older than either of us. Yes. And potentially there may be some significant space for an update in this in this space. I think it's clear from from my hon. think it's clear from from my hon. Friend's comments and from everything that we've heard this afternoon that this situation is all too common up and down the all too common up and down the country.

Managing agents are just letting people down. The long term solution has to be councils taking solution has to be councils taking on the management of these estates themselves. It is an absolute travesty that we have a bizarre situation where some people are being charged twice for the same service. Yeah. Last week I and other Labour MPs met with the House Builders Federation to discuss this and I'd like to place on my record, and I'd like to place on my record, on the record, my thanks to my honourable friend the member for Hitchin for organising that.

It was very clear the message that came out of that, that actually the adoption is holding up those companies as well. Those companies want to see these adoptions happening faster. There are massive issues with the way that they get approached for things. One story approached for things. One story that we heard of a particular local authority that demands semi permeable paving as part of their planning process, but their same highways department will never apparently adopt anything. The semi permeable paving. Just a totally bizarre situation.

It's not a case of two councils, it's one organisation where one hand is not talking to the other. Councils need to work harder on this. They need to make sure that they're working with residents, with companies to get this right, but they also need to have the money and the expertise to be able to do that. And I think after 14 years of cuts, freezes and austerity on councils, it's left planning departments hollowed out, and we need to make sure that we are rebuilding that capacity to make sure that this can be done correctly.

I think it's really important that we take this issue very seriously, so that residents in my constituency and across the country get a service that they so deeply need and apparently are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying through the nose for. Yeah. And with an immediate five minute time limit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute time limit. Pam Cox Deputy Speaker. Property service charges and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Property service charges and the behaviour of the companies that levy them are causing real distress across the country. And I thank the member for Reigate for her speech member for Reigate for her speech setting out those challenges in Colchester. I've heard from residents at Orchard Gardens, Colon residents at Orchard Gardens, Colon View, Kingswood Heath, who are being charged astonishing amounts, often thousands of pounds a year, for services that are either poorly delivered or not delivered at all. Many of those homes are managed by
15:14
Pam Cox Portrait Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)
-
-
Many of those homes are managed by one company. I imagine that company is firstport that when I walked into the chamber that Firstport had been named 39 times in the chamber this year, I imagine they've doubled that in the course of this afternoon. They they claim to be an award winning management company that makes customers feel safe and happy in their homes. Well, I think we've all got a little bit of news for for Firstport retired residents. Residents in Orchard Gardens showed me demands for payments for services they say they never received, or for which they'd already paid.

Residents at the Cone View development have faced a 15 year, 15 year battle over neglect, overcharging and obfuscation. They faced extortionate service charges, sometimes doubling in a year, and yet their buildings are left mouldy, unsafe and unclean. They feel bullied, belittle and belittled and beyond hope that they will ever resolve what's become a living nightmare. I'm very pleased to say that one of those residents, cheer, was able to come into Parliament last week to give us some evidence to a panel of MPs organised by the members for Hendon and Westminster, who have been working on this for some time, and I hope the Minister would consider that that evidence that was gathered, I'm advised not to, if that's OK.

Thank you. Just so we keep to time. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, Lord Best, who is the Chair of the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, said in his recent evidence to the Housing Communities Local Government Select Committee that this is an unregulated sector and his group has called for proper regulation. If property agents can't behave responsibly, they must be held to account. This is about fairness. This is about restoring trust, and it's about ensuring that nobody in Colchester or anywhere else has to pay over the odds for these basic services, or fight tooth and nail just to get a straight answer from companies like Firstport.

So I would urge the Minister to move at pace to implement this new framework. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you so much. Jim Dickson. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Can I just say I welcome.
15:16
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just say I welcome. This debate warmly? I pay. Tribute to the honourable member for Reigate for securing it and her for Reigate for securing it and her excellent speech in introducing it, as well as the great contributions from other members property service charges, whether that's freeholders who have purchased homes on a on adapted new build estates or leaseholders living in flats are a huge concern to residents across Dartford. And it's no exaggeration to say that the charges are causing misery to my constituents as home to Ebbsfleet, Garden City and other developments including Ingress Park, Greenhithe and The Bridge near Dartford.

The constituency I am proud to represent has amongst the highest number of leaseholders and freeholders paying property service charges of any in the country and as others have done, I have also surveyed my residents on managing agents and costs, and it is fair to say the summary is that residents are bemused by what seems to be the lack of a framework through which to assess what reasonable service charges should cover long term trends in rising building insurance costs and energy price increases mixed with opaque charging practices by managing agents have created a toxic mix for residents.

And as if that wasn't enough, residents long after buying their new property have been shocked to receive demands for 3 to 5 years of backdated service charges. This in some cases even predates their ownership of their property, or very soon after they bought the property, with billing often containing immediate demands for repayment. Coming years. After they started occupying their home. Another incredibly frustrating issue for residents, and this is one that I think the minister might be able to pick up directly with developers is how transparent they are with buyers about the level of service charges they should expect to pay on their new property.

One constituent of mine ended up with ended up £4,000 in debt, as he was being charged for the maintenance of the estate around his House, on which construction had not yet even been completed. Much of the area of the new build estates in my constituency remain unadopted by the local authority, an issue we discussed in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, secured by my honourable friend, the member for Hitchin. There is a huge sense of unease and unfairness amongst residents living on these Unadopted estates.

They're paying full council tax in addition to hefty service charges, paying for the local authority to maintain roads and parks in other parts of the area, but not the ones on the immediate estate on which they live. And I warmly welcome the Minister's response at that debate, confirming it remained a commitment to end the injustice of so-called fleecehold estates. And I hope we can have an update on this at the end of the debate. I have been grateful to be part of over 100 MPs from this side of the House who have banded together to hold managing agents to account since November 2024, including Firstport and RMG and others.

And we will not let managing agents off the hook for the extremely poor service that they deliver to our residents. We need to see a roadmap from the government on how unadopted roads in estates will be taken on by the relevant local authority. And I wonder, finally, if the Minister might remind the House builders that their choices of managing agents for new developments will cause them long term reputational damage if they continue to select companies that simply aren't up to the job.

Let's get this right on behalf of freeholders and leaseholders across the country.
15:19
15:19
15:19
Noah Law Portrait Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)
-
-
It ultimately boils down to one fundamental. Issue disparity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be it from me to play devil's advocate for a. Broken sector. A market failure. But some residents face

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But some residents face affordable service. Charges and. Benefit from management. Companies that are responsive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and effective in resolving their problems. Yet others. Often living in. Similar developments. Are saddled with soaring fees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saddled with soaring fees. And management. Companies that are slow. Unaccountable, uncommunicative, leaving basic issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unresolved for. Months on end. And when people are forced. To pay ever higher. Prices for worsening service,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prices for worsening service, it's no wonder that frustration and. Resentment towards the sector as a whole is growing. One of my whole is growing. One of my constituents recently wrote to me, alarmed with the service charge that had risen from £161 a month to that had risen from £161 a month to 266 the following year, a staggering 65. I think that might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be a record today, a 65% increase. that. The management. Company, which I won't name, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Company, which I won't name, but we can hazard a guess again, which it was, had simply overspent on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work that it had carried out. In such. An arbitrary rise is unaffordable for so many households, and illustrates the dramatic and damaging impact that unchecked service charges inflation can have. service charges inflation can have. But beyond the question of costs lies an equally important issue transparency. Too often, residents have no idea, as we've heard, what they're paying for or why. Service charge statements are opaque, and when asked for explanations, they're often met with obfuscation and silence. And thirdly, there's a chronic lack of oversight and accountability, which I look forward to hearing more on the potential for from the minister later, when residents wish to challenge higher, unjustified costs.

Options, as we've heard, are limited for any form of recourse except through the courts. The balance of power lies entirely with the managing agents and not the homeowners footing the bill. Worst of all, we discover money only after many discover only after moving on, that the management company responsible for the estate is unfit for purpose, providing poor and inconsistent service in exchange for their hard earned money. Residents still have to pay council tax in addition to their service charges, leading to a feeling of being double charged.

And it's no surprise that my constituents are crying out for stronger abilities. Therefore, to take on the right to manage. Areas that manage locally are often extraordinarily effective, with better services, better value for money, and better local oversight all compounding to support communities that thrive. Another of my constituents shared her frustration at the estates management company, consistently failing to maintain communal grounds. She wrote my issue is that we, the residents, have no real power or control over the management of communal grounds, but were expected to pay that cost.

I want that control. We should have the right to make our own choice of property manager. That sentiment is shared by thousands across the country. It speaks to an urgent need for the regulation of the sector, which to date has been a licence to print money. A high yield which gives private equity companies a perverse incentive dynamic which, see honourable lady for Reigate, described so eloquently at the start of this debate. Problems often arise from a failure of local authorities to adopt highways, as we've had, and that's due to a poor incentive structure as well.

I therefore hope to see all of these these issues, particularly around transparency, value for money, accountability and professional standards addressed, if we can, in the Leasehold and Common Leasehold and Common Hold Reform Bill, which after all of the progress we've made on renters' rights in the past week, represents a huge opportunity for leaseholders across the country thanks to this Labour government, because until we rebalance those relationships, residents will continue to feel powerless, exploited and unheard.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page