Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2026-27, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (HC40); notes the Government’s commitments to cap ground rents and to bring forward legislation in this Session to support the uptake of commonhold in place of leasehold; further notes the concerning practices of some property managing agents who fail to act in the best interests of homeowners; and calls on the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation to legislate to create a body with enforcement powers to regulate property managing agents.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important and timely debate, which gives the House the chance to consider our Committee’s report on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I thank my fellow Committee members for their collaboration and cross-party work on the report, the excellent Committee staff for their help in preparing the report and the Committee’s two specialist advisers, Professor Nick Hopkins and Wendy Wilson, for their assistance throughout our inquiry.

Today’s motion invites the House to call on the Government to use the final Bill to legislate for the regulation of managing agents. Colleagues from across the House will be all too familiar from their inboxes with the “wild west” of managing agents, but first I would like to begin by discussing some of our findings on the draft Bill more generally.

For many of the 5 million leaseholders across England and Wales, these reforms have been a long time coming. After a decade of campaigning across party lines, we now have an opportunity to finally tackle the fundamental injustices of the leasehold system, once and for all. Leasehold reform has long commanded cross-party support. Ten years ago, the campaign in Parliament was championed by the former Member for Worthing West, Sir Peter Bottomley. His work chairing the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform amplified leaseholders’ voices across Westminster. I thank the current chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his tireless cross-party campaigning. It is in that cross-party spirit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and Lord Gove generously gave evidence alongside each other in the opening session of our inquiry. The two former Housing Secretaries were united in their view that this draft Bill is welcome, and that the Government must go further and faster to deliver for leaseholders.

The draft Bill is technical and long—it runs to 164 clauses and 13 schedules—but if we take a step back, the problem that it seeks to address is about control. Control is supposed to be one of the main advantages for people of buying their own home.

For many leaseholders, a flat is their first foot on the housing ladder. They may have been drawn in by the banners on new build developments advertising the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. Many leaseholders were told that that was the affordable route to buying, via shared ownership. They expected control and a feeling of security, knowing that they could make the changes that they wanted in their own home and have control over the running costs, and would not be threatened with eviction by a landlord.

The benefits of home ownership simply do not apply to leaseholders. They are homeowners, yet they are tenants. Far from home ownership and the dream that they were sold, many of them are stuck in a living nightmare. In the words of one leaseholder, who shared their story with our inquiry:

“I thought I’d bought a flat, then discovered leasehold is a financial trap. I have no control over my finances, my relationships, where I live, or where I work”.

We all agree that this is an injustice that needs to be addressed. This afternoon’s debate is an opportunity for Members to reflect on the draft Bill and what additional measures might need to be included in the final version to ensure that we get these reforms right.

Perhaps the most headline-grabbing measure in the draft Bill is that it will cap existing ground rents at £250 a year. We must be absolutely clear across this House and in the other place that ground rent is money for nothing. An investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority found “no persuasive evidence” that leaseholders “receive anything in return” for ground rent. Many leaseholders have ground rents that double every 10 years or increase with the retail prices index.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for recognising the work done not only by me, but by Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick on the APPG. I was struck by a comment in the Committee’s report about the argument put forward by some freeholders that ground rents are used to cover service charges and that people will be put in danger if they are lost. The Committee used the word “shameful” for that argument. Does that not show that this system is a money-making racket? People are using any excuse to carry on that income stream.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I refer my hon. Friend to the evidence session at which we had representatives of freeholders—one of the most enlightening sessions for my Committee and my colleagues. We probed and pushed and tried to seek justification for ground rents, but none was forthcoming. That shows that they are a money-making scheme.

We must be absolutely clear, as the Competition and Markets Authority has said, that there is no place for ground rents. Last month, there were media reports that the Government are preparing to accept our Committee’s recommendation to bring the £250 ground rent cap into force in late 2027—one year earlier than previously planned. If those reports are correct, that will be welcome news for many leaseholders, who are calling on us to act with greater urgency.

However, even before the final Bill has been introduced, we hear threats of judicial review from a small number of organisations with very deep pockets. Rather than engaging with the process here in Parliament, they are preparing to challenge the democratic mandate of successive Governments, and the will of this House, to make these changes. Shame on them. They know that they have lost the political debate.

The Government should be emboldened by the fact that they have successfully defended judicial reviews in the past. We think they should push ahead with these reforms, but there is a real risk that these measures could be delayed if freeholders do launch such a challenge. The Committee has called on the Government to include a clause for the ground rent cap in the final Bill to ensure that it comes into force two months after the legislation receives Royal Assent.

We support the Government’s intention to change to peppercorn ground rent over time. We understand that that will need a transition period, as Ministers must be confident that they are striking a fair balance between the interests of competing parties, but it is not clear to us how the Government decided on their policy of a 40-year transition. Based on the evidence to our Committee so far, we think a shorter transition period may be justified and fair. That is why our report calls on the Government to publish more data in the coming months so we can be confident that we are getting the transition period right.

Another key focus of the draft Bill is the measure to replace leasehold with a new commonhold tenure. Commonhold will allow all homeowners to have a vote in how their block is run. Homeowners are not required to participate in commonhold if they do not want to, and many blocks will vote to appoint their chosen managing agent, but this modern tenure will offer homeowners the control that they do not have under the current leasehold system.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for the excellent work that they have done in preparation for this Bill. Pensioners who bought retirement flats in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in my constituency were hoping for peace of mind; instead, they have had rocketing service charges, poor maintenance and a lack of communication and transparency from FirstPort, the property managing agent. Does my hon. Friend agree that while commonhold is a fantastic opportunity for leaseholders to take charge, we need further independent regulation of property agents to ensure that they provide a good service to leaseholders and commonholders in the future?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I thank many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I will come on to the very important area of managing agents and a firm that is notorious with many of us in this Chamber—FirstPort.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is about to come on to property managing agents. May I add to the experiences heard by her Committee the experiences of constituents in my communities? Probably one third of the casework that I deal with relates to the poor performance of property managing agents. Does she agree that many leaseholders face real difficulty in getting proper recourse? A much tougher regime than the one currently in place, involving the property ombudsman and the property redress scheme, is urgently needed if leaseholders are to have genuine hope that their concerns about managing agents will be taken seriously.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend, a fellow London MP, for that intervention. This issue is not just isolated to London; it happens in many areas right across the country, and it was raised continuously throughout our inquiry. As I mentioned, I will come on to the issue of managing agents more broadly.

Our Committee is broadly supportive of the move to commonhold. That said, we have two key questions about its implementation. First, the Government must clarify what voting rights shared owners will have in commonholds. The Government have indicated that housing associations may have control over the votes of shared owners during the 10-year initial repair period of their properties. That could leave shared owners without any say in decisions that directly affect their homes. We call on the Government to clarify the position on this matter. We must ensure that the vote can be split between shared owners and their housing providers if necessary, so that shared ownership leaseholders get a meaningful say.

Secondly, we need to ensure that as many existing leaseholders as possible are able to convert to commonhold. The Government want all new build homes to be commonhold and to support existing leaseholders to convert. However, the draft Bill does not enact important recommendations from the Law Commission that would make it easier for leaseholders to buy out their freeholder and make the important switch. Our report includes proposals on how some of those recommendations could be included. If it is not possible to include them in this Bill, the Government must bring forward further legislation later in this Parliament. We do not want to run the risk of leaving some leaseholders behind.

The biggest issue and source of frustration for so many homeowners and leaseholders in the leasehold system is the quality—or lack of it—and service provided by their managing agents. Many colleagues from across the House will share cases involving their constituents in this afternoon’s debate, but it will come as no surprise to anyone that one company came up time and again in the stories we heard from leaseholders. That company was FirstPort, the largest independent managing agent in England. Last year, the Minister said he had “significant concerns” about FirstPort’s unreasonable service charges, its slow response to complaints and its approach to debt collection.

Ultimately, the problem with many of these managing agents is that they are taking advantage of a captive market. They effectively have a monopoly on individual estates, meaning that they are able to treat homeowners with sheer contempt. In the words of one leaseholder we heard from, homeowners are left feeling “like cash cows”.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about leaseholders being treated with contempt. I have an estate in my constituency, Bishops Gate, where it took three years for FirstPort to respond to residents’ requests, and even when the council got involved, FirstPort refused its request. Given all the service charges they had paid in, the homeowners believed that there would be £230,000 in the account; in fact, there is zero, and they are told that there is £60,000 of debt. That is the sort of scam that is going on.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example; colleagues across the Chamber will probably cite similar, if not worse, ones. That is a shocking indictment of the company we are discussing. The law already requires service charge increases to be “reasonable”, but when charges are skyrocketing for basic maintenance services such as cutting grass, many residents do not feel that they are being treated reasonably.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Residents in Stratford and Bow tell me that some of their monthly service charges have now reached almost £600. It is driving them to the financial brink, and many of their neighbours are now facing legal threats for falling behind. I have had to intervene on several occasions, calling public meetings with management agents that are behaving terribly and treating residents as cash cows. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that leaseholders continue to be pushed about by unregulated property management agents who are profiteering from our constituents, and that the Government must bring forward robust measures to protect leaseholders as quickly as possible?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point—as I mentioned, many colleagues will have dealt with similar cases. This is an issue that we want the Government to look seriously at, and one that has frequently been brought up in the Chamber. It is right that Members are advocating for their constituents, but local MPs or Housing Ministers should not have to name and shame these companies; we are talking about some of the largest managing agents in England. We are seeing patterns, with the same companies coming up time and again across the country. As MPs, our support for individual blocks and housing estates might result in small wins locally, but it is not addressing the root cause of the problem.

Our Committee surveyed over 7,000 homeowners, and found that the regulation of managing agents was the No. 1 action that homeowners wanted the Government to prioritise as part of their leasehold and commonhold agenda. In 2018, the Lord Best report proposed a new regulator to cover letting and managing agents, with a mandatory and enforceable code of practice. Lord Best recommended that this new body should be established as a statutory regulator for property agents, as there was no existing body that could take on that role. Even the managing agents themselves have told us that they would welcome Lord Best’s proposals for regulation and the professionalisation this would bring to the sector. We already have industry-funded professional bodies with their own codes, but self-regulation does not work.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I am dealing with huge numbers of groups of leaseholders, and one of the things we have discovered—with the managing agent very much as my hon. Friend is describing —is this habit of subcontracting, only for the leaseholders to find that the subcontractors are owned by the same company; the name has just been changed. When we raised this point, the answer we got from FirstPort last week was, “We can do what we want.” Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument about regulation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before the hon. Lady rises, I remind Members that this is a very oversubscribed debate, and I am sure that many people want to speak.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and wish him a happy birthday—I am sure a good birthday present for him would be the regulation of managing agents for the sake of his constituents. Self-regulation does not work when there is no real enforcement, and leaseholders were clear with us that they do not just want mandatory qualifications. As Lord Best put it in his evidence to the Committee,

“being qualified doesn’t necessarily make people behave properly; you still need a code of practice and enforcement”.

What we need is a regulator with teeth—one that will issue meaningful sanctions against agents that treat homeowners like a revenue stream. For the worst offenders, that should include the removal of their licence to operate.

I should acknowledge that our inquiry heard from some campaigners who were concerned that regulation could add to the costs passed on to leaseholders via service charges. On balance, though, we think that regulation is now necessary to protect all leaseholders from rogue managing agents. The reality is that some leaseholders will not be able to convert to commonhold—some blocks will not be able to meet the 50% threshold to convert, and some blocks will have special features that mean they are not eligible. We cannot leave those homeowners behind.

Ultimately, commonhold is a vast improvement, but it will not always be as simple as hiring and firing agents. Commonholds are likely to appoint managing agents on contracts that last for several years, and they need to have confidence that they are appointing high-quality service providers. An independent code of practice would provide that assurance, so overall we think it would be a valuable addition to the final Bill—one that would benefit homeowners. Homeowners want a crackdown on poorly performing agents like FirstPort, with a regulator that has teeth and can deliver.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Florence Eshalomi]

Very quickly.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of times that nobody should be left behind by this legislation. My constituents suffer from the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust, a supposed charity that refuses to allow them to extend their leases and is using a loophole in the current legislation, leaving them—as one constituent put it—as prisoners in their current homes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation should address those concerns and liberate my constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of marriage value and the extension of leases, with many people having to take out additional loans just to remortgage and extend their lease. All these areas are covered in the draft Bill, and I know the Minister is keen to address them.

The Bill will be an opportunity to impact the lives of millions of constituents across England and Wales who bought their homes in good faith. We must all take responsibility for keeping this topic on the agenda and ensuring that the final Bill comes back to this Chamber in the autumn to make progress through Parliament—we cannot allow this issue to be swept away by events that are happening outside this place or that are beyond our control.

Our Committee’s report sets out the blueprint for the changes needed to make the Bill a bolder, more ambitious piece of legislation. With an independent regulator, we can ensure that all homeowners see a real change in the short term. I therefore urge Members across the House to support today’s motion; leaseholders’ expectations have been set very high, so it is vital that we get the reforms right. If we do so, this will be the Parliament that finally allows leaseholders to realise their dream of home ownership, making them true homeowners with the control they have been promised.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I am mindful of the time, but let me thank the 24 Back-Bench Members who have contributed to the debate; I hope that the Minister will see that there is cross-party support. We will continue to keep this issue on the agenda, because it is only right that this Parliament does what the Labour manifesto committed to do: bring an end to the feudal leasehold system.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s First Report of Session 2026-27, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (HC40); notes the Government’s commitments to cap ground rents and to bring forward legislation in this Session to support the uptake of commonhold in place of leasehold; further notes the concerning practices of some property managing agents who fail to act in the best interests of homeowners; and calls on the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation to legislate to create a body with enforcement powers to regulate property managing agents.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think I might be on the right hon. Lady’s sanctions list! But in actual fact, when I raised this with the Russian ambassador—I was a bit upset—he said, “Well, we have many lists, Mr Bryant.” I do not know whether I am on a target list, which is maybe slightly different.

I am not ashamed of what we are doing today. As a very stout defender of Ukraine’s right to defend itself, and as somebody who argued for a very long time that we should be trying to make sure that Russian frozen assets were made available to Ukraine, I am proud of what we are doing, because we are introducing a tougher sanctions regime. The only bit we have had to take cognisance of is the fact that the situation in the middle east means that there was a danger of a sudden spike in prices and we had to address that. I very much hope that this will be a very temporary measure. I will be keeping a very watchful eye to make sure that we are able to suspend the licences as soon as we possibly can.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this really important urgent question. He will know that we must keep at the forefront of our minds our allies in Ukraine who have been fighting this terrible illegal war for many years. I am proud that many of my constituents took in many people from Ukraine at the start of the invasion. Echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), I am concerned about the communication around this issue. A constituent contacted me and said:

“I am one of your constituents and have never had reason to contact you. However, on awaking this morning I am both angry and ashamed by the announcement, snuck out last night, that your government is (partially) lifting sanctions on the purchase of Russian oil.”

Can the Minister reassure me and my constituents that this will be a temporary measure, similar to the sanctions restrictions put in place by the Americans? My understanding is that they will be there for 30 days.

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the phrase that sometimes it is conspiracy and sometimes it is something else. I just want to say that, in relation to communications, there is no conspiracy. Nobody is trying to undermine our support for Ukraine. The statutory instrument on the tougher measures was always going to come into force today. Up until today it was perfectly legal to import Russian products that had been refined in third party countries into the UK. It will no longer be legal to do so. There are several categories under that which will be banned. For instance, it will tackle carbon fibre used in the production of Russian drones, chemicals used in precision missiles, and goods used in emerging technologies such as quantum computing and AI. I want to ensure that these licences will be as temporary as possible. In 2022, along with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I visited Kyiv and Avdiivka, right at the very edge, roughly a fortnight before the full-scale invasion. We saw Russian troops and snipers pointing at Ukrainians. This battle has gone on since 2014, not just since 2022. I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government stand 100% beside the Ukrainian people.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In particular, I share his anger, and that of the whole House, at how sub-postmasters were treated, whether as victims of the Horizon scandal or of the Capture software issues, which was clearly appalling. We must do everything we can to ensure that can never be repeated. He will understand that yesterday was the last day of hearings in Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry. Sir Wyn Williams has said that he will publish his conclusions and recommendations within months. The Government will then work at pace to consider his recommendations and to publish our response within six months of that date. The specific ideas that the hon. Gentleman has referenced in that context will, I am sure, be part of the Government’s deliberations. He will forgive me if I wait at this stage for Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendations. We will then look at those recommendations and come to the House with the future steps we intend to take.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office. It is also welcome that the Government are taking additional steps towards financial redress for the postmasters who suffered such horrendous treatment in that scandal. I am concerned that this new deal for postmasters comes at the expense of post office branches across the country, including at Kensington Park in my constituency. Does he agree that there should not be a choice between giving postmasters a fair deal and losing essential high street services? Will he please meet me to discuss that further?

[Gareth Thomas]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recognise that post offices are a fundamental part of every one of our communities in the UK. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been clear that we adhere to and support the commitment on various access requirements to ensure that every community has good access to post office facilities. On directly managed branches, she will know that no decision on the future of all those branches, or indeed any individual branch, has been taken. I recognise that she has particular concerns about the branch in Kennington, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that.

Budget Resolutions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, we will talk a little later about stability. If colleagues do not have maiden speeches to make, I will be very happy to talk at great length about the many benefits of Brexit and the important ability for a country to make its own laws and deliver benefits for the economy.

Let me make some progress. The Secretary of State has talked much about infrastructure, and, indeed, that is partly the subject of today’s debate. Although creating infrastructure is a noble goal, important to all the constituents who send us here, words, I am afraid, are cheap, and the actions of his party somewhat undermine his position. His party voted in the other place against measures to allow 100,000 homes to be built, and his Labour Mayor of London failed to build to such an extent that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government now proposes lowering his targets. This Labour Budget has pulled up the housing ladder for so many, by increasing the burden of stamp duty for first-time buyers. Currently, an estimated 80% of first-time buyers pay no stamp duty, but from April 2025, that could fall to only half.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, particularly if she can tell me how this Budget will help deliver for first-time buyers.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that this Labour Government will help renters by banning no-fault evictions?

[Andrew Griffith]

I was party to the debate in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talked about the unintended consequences of piling burden upon burden on the rental market—in a well-meaning way, I accept. We have only to look north of the border, where similar measures were introduced, to see their devastating effect on the rental markets, and the shocking increase in rents as a result of a Government trying to over-regulate a sector.

Laughably, while the Government talk about investment, in their first 100 days, they cancelled the restoring your railway programme—clearly, with some projects being honourable exceptions—which would have made it easier for constituents to get to work sustainably. They have also cancelled road schemes, including the A303 scheme and—I declare an interest—the A27 Arundel bypass in my constituency. It is not the first time that a Labour Government have cancelled that bypass. The Government talk a great deal about the future of this country, the technology and their modern industrial strategy, but should not new innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence and supercomputing, be at the heart of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to speak about the first Labour Budget in 14 years. For my constituents, the last fourteen years have been difficult. Too often, they felt that the then Government were not on their side. That Government did not hear that austerity left us not only with deteriorating public services but more fragile communities. They did not reform the planning system, which would have alleviated the housing crisis and stopped the 20% to 30% rent increases that left many of my constituents facing eviction during a cost of living crisis. They did not take the difficult decisions to protect the economy, and left our new Government with a black hole to fill.

We heard loud and clear in July that government must be different. This Budget offers that. We have a rise to the national living wage and to the rate for under-21s, which will make work pay whatever someone’s age. Funding of over £25 billion for the NHS over the next two years will deliver more doctors and tens of thousands of extra appointments, helping hospitals such as St Thomas’, just over the river in my constituency.

As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I have heard a lot from our local authorities, which have borne the brunt of the failure to tackle the housing crisis. Councils have been forgotten, with devastating consequences for communities. Yesterday, at our first public Committee meeting, we heard from homelessness organisations and local authority representatives on the state of temporary accommodation. Councils are having to spend unsustainable amounts to fill gaps in that area, which is driving them to near bankruptcy. In London alone, 70% of local authority housing budgets are being absorbed by temporary accommodation. That means less money for repairs and maintenance of housing stock, which leaves tenants feeling the increase in the crisis.

The human impact is even more shocking. As I speak, over 150,000 children are in temporary accommodation across England. In the last five years, 55 children have died in circumstances linked to temporary accommodation; 42 of them were under the age of one. That should shock and shame us. Those deaths are not coincidental. Yesterday, the Committee heard about families living in one room. That can stunt a child’s growth because they are not able to do the things they should, such as crawling. We heard about how a child’s ability to form social attachments with peers can be affected by the lack of consistency caused by constant moving. We heard about how parents are often plunged into mental health crises because of the stress of raising a family in those conditions, which further isolates the child.

The Government can and must do better. I welcome the steps in this Budget to supplement the affordable housing programme, increase homelessness spending and scale back right to buy to boost our social housing stock, but they must be first steps. We need further significant change in the upcoming funding settlement, and the next Budget must truly start to address that crisis. I am particularly worried about the freeze to local housing allowance rate, because it is a lifeline for people who are struggling. That is covered by the Department for Work and Pensions, but the measure could have a significant impact on attempts to tackle the homelessness crisis, so it must be addressed in upcoming statements.

The deep harm caused by the last 14 years cannot and will not be fixed overnight. The Budget is the first in my five years in this House that gives us a glimmer of hope and a road map for fixing our broken public services. I congratulate the Chancellor and her team on getting on with the job so quickly, but I will be a voice for the thousands of families who continue to fall through the cracks with no safety net beneath them. They cannot afford to wait any longer for help—they need it now. I urge the Government to give attention to people in crisis, such as those in temporary accommodation. We cannot, as a Labour Government, risk failing a generation of young people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is no longer in her place. I think that we can all agree that it was very hard to listen to the names that she mentioned. I will cite just two of them. One was Johanita Dogbey, who was my constituent. She was killed on 1 May last year in broad daylight. Following on from the earlier statement by the Home Secretary on police resourcing and the need to ensure that the police respond to things locally, what was really tragic and sad about that killing was that apparently the gentleman responsible made an attempt two days earlier in the local area—so could that death have been prevented? Nothing will ever prepare us for having to sit with a grieving family who have lost a child. As we know, no parent should have to bury their child. Every so often, I still remember the embrace that I gave to Johanita’s mum, and the pain that she felt—she asked me why her daughter was taken.

I also wanted to mention Elianne Andam, one of the other names that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned. Again, that senseless killing shocked so many people. People will remember that on 27 September, at 8.30 in the morning, a young 15-year-old was tragically stabbed in her school uniform, on her way to school in Croydon. Again, I think about when my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and I attended the vigil in Croydon a week after, and we embraced Elianne’s mum, Dorcas. We felt that raw pain of yet another woman’s life being taken and asked ourselves, “Why? Why has this been allowed to happen again?” It is for all those women that we, as female politicians—and also male politicians—need to do better in addressing how we conduct ourselves; we cannot let those deaths be in vain.

Today, we are debating a motion on language and politics. It is right that we do so, because language does matter. The words that we use really matter. As politicians, we all have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that ensures that we can all be treated with dignity and respect; yes, there can be passion and even sometimes a bit of anger when we are trying to get our points across, but—going back to the statement and to some of the earlier speeches—if we as parliamentarians are not conducting ourselves in that way, we should not wonder why our constituents and the general public then fuel that abuse and hate towards us. We have to be respectful towards each other.

It is important that we do not put off further women from standing for election. I am proud that, in 2019, I was part of the most diverse intake ever. A small group of 26 of us were elected for Labour for the first time in 2019, yet we were majority female—19 of us. Of those 19, 10 of us were BME women, including the first hijab-wearing MP. We should be celebrating that, but if the language coming out from politics and from politicians is not respectful, we will not see those types of women standing for election. It is important that we look at that. All parties, including my own, have a duty to consider how we treat female politicians—not just when they are candidates, but after they are elected. It is about that duty of care and ensuring that we are providing a support network for our colleagues, and looking at how the House authorities can help us.

Delivering women’s equality in this place is vital if we are to have a healthy democracy. It is important that all parties consider how best to ensure that more women can come into politics, but we have to be honest about some of the barriers that are still in place. For a number of those women, campaigning, and time off for public duties, can be expensive. A number of these women bear the burden of caring responsibilities, and it is important that we look at what support is in place.

As we approach International Women’s Day, we should work together to redouble our efforts to support women who are thinking about standing for election, and those who are already here to make sure that our politics—not just the language that we use, but the actions that we take —continues to be strong and inclusive for everyone.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. We are aware of the problem. We are working with the advisory board to see how we can fix it and ensure that people get proper compensation. I have just been told by the postal affairs Minister that the letter she is expecting should be with her shortly.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She will be aware that many post office branches have closed in recent years, including the Clapham Common post office in my constituency, which is due to close on 6 March. In her statement, she said:

“Right now, the Post Office’s No. 1 priority must be delivering compensation to postmasters”.

Does she agree that millions of pounds spent on the Post Office trying to pay innocent sub-postmasters would have been better spent on ensuring that we keep our vital post offices up and down the country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her tireless work campaigning to save Clapham post office; I know she has had many meetings with the postal affairs Minister. We should be able both to keep post offices open and to compensate.

Measles

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have plenty of vaccine—that is one of the messages we want to get out—and that is both the traditional MMR vaccine and the non-porcine vaccine. We also have plenty of vaccination spaces. We have spaces at GP clinics and pharmacies, and the school roll-out programme has spaces, but we still do not have people coming forward. We really need the help of all hon. Members in this place to get the message out that people should come forward for their MMR vaccine to protect against measles.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

Every time my six-year-old comes home coughing, I get a bit scared because, obviously, measles is highly contagious. It is important that we get the message out about the way it is passed on through coughs, sneezes and high fevers. The Minister has outlined a range of areas where the Government are trying to get that message out, but the fact is that they are fighting against a system where a number of the hesitancy messages are shared in closed groups—groups that are getting that message out to parents and carers who will not come forward. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to counter that and to give people an informed choice on the vaccine, so that they come forward with their children?

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is vaccine hesitancy, and that is a key reason why uptake has dropped so significantly across all groups, but more in some groups than in others. That is why NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency have written to more than 1 million parents in the west midlands and London to highlight the benefits of having the MMR vaccine. As more cases of measles break out, we are seeing more people come forward to take up the vaccine, because they are balancing for themselves the risk of having the vaccine, which is very minimal, against the risk of having measles. Any help that hon. Members can give is welcome and we are very willing to hear any suggestions they have for helpful messages in their own particular communities.

Arms Export Licences: Israel

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Zarah Sultana]

Absolutely, and I will go on to talk about the Bill I have presented to the House. This is what the debate is about: getting the Government to commit to ending these arms licences so that we are not complicit in war crimes.

We do track closed export licences, through which we know that the Government have handed arms licences to the Israeli Government worth £474 million since 2015.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this powerful debate. She mentioned that the UK Government have closed export licences with Israel. The criteria outlining who can receive arms export licences from the Government include strong wording in relation to violence against women and girls. Does my hon. Friend agree we need to ensure that any arms exported from this country are not used to facilitate unlawful military action?

[Zarah Sultana]

We have a licensing regime, but there are loopholes that are often exploited, which is what we are seeking to address.

Conversion Practices

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Does he recognise that some of us who are religious and have religious belief know that this practice is abhorrent?

[Christian Wakeford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would go one step further and say that not only is it abhorrent; it is evil, and there is no place for it in any part of society.

As well as study activities, Ben also had to go door to door and preach on the streets every week.

“From a very young age, I knew I was gay. However, I had been taught that homosexuality was disgusting in the eyes of God. I felt so alone with the feelings I had.”

Ben was outed by another member of their faith group, who found out that they had a boyfriend. Ben was 21.

“He gave me the ultimatum that I had to tell my parents before he did. We were dealing with a family bereavement, so it wasn’t the right time. I was petrified of the repercussions of coming out, so I initially did it by text message. I hoped it would soften the reaction when I was face-to-face with my parents. However, I was accused of deceiving my parents, and their reaction was hateful. They told me I was ‘disgusting’ as they feared what other people would say. Our family environment became a warzone.”

Ben’s parents tried to tell them that they were going through a phase and had just not met the right girl yet. That went on for months, destroying Ben’s mental health and leaving them with no choice but to endure religious study activities.

“They wanted to ‘make me see sense’. Over a year I had to talk about my sexuality in detail, as I risked being made homeless. I was even made to change my dress sense to stop wearing bright colours and have my hair cut short to appear more ‘masculine’.”

Ben had to read the same scriptures over and over again, even being given “homework” of watching heterosexual pornography, which they did in an attempt to regain stability over their life. Eventually, Ben hit rock bottom and repeatedly ran away from home.

“I have struggled with my sexuality all my life, and what I’ve been through means I now battle constantly with shame, fear, trust issues, needing validation and waiting for people to abandon me.”

I think we will all agree that that is no way to live.

“Everyone deserves a safe space. If I had that, it could have been my chance to escape earlier, and I want that option for anyone in my situation.”

I could go on and share countless testimonies from many people, but I will share the words of just one more person. Penny, 50, from Portsmouth, said it best in 2018:

“Conversion therapy…is abuse of the worst kind and must be stamped out.”

That was not just any Penny; that was our current Leader of the House, who was the Minister for Women and Equalities at the time of those words. Her article in The Independent went on to say that her Department would now consider

“all legislative and non-legislative options”

to prohibit promoting, offering or conducting the therapy in the UK. So as glad as I am to have secured this incredibly important debate, there really should be no need for it. Half a decade has passed, and the Government have betrayed the LGBT community on this issue. There has been U-turn after U-turn because we have had Conservative Prime Ministers who have been too weak to take on the right wing of the party.

Banning all forms of so-called conversion therapy is the right and moral thing to do. A ban on conversion therapy is not woke, left wing or for snowflakes—or whatever other bizarre term certain people opposed to it want to offer up this week. It is not complicated, as some have made it out to be. There has been a failure of leadership. It is the right thing to do.

We sometimes go wrong in this House at times like this. This is not a debate—it should never be a debate. It is a conversation, at best. People are entitled to their own opinions; however, they are not entitled to their own facts. Underpinning this conversation is the fact that conversion cannot be done: we cannot change someone’s sexuality or gender identity, just as you cannot change mine, Madam Chairman. People can go on all the courses and say all the prayers they want, but it cannot be done. It is physically impossible; in fact, it is perverted to think that it is possible.

For someone in a position of power to push their ideas of what sexuality is means that they are imagining what people are doing behind closed doors. It seems to me that that person not only has a problem, but is the problem—it is not the young person who is gay, lesbian or trans. It is not a choice to be lesbian, bi, gay or trans. If it were, why would anyone actively choose to make their life harder? Members should ask themselves the question: “Would I choose to face front-page demonisation almost every single day? Would I have chosen, decades ago, to be jailed for who I fell in love with? Would I choose to be part of a group that saw record levels of hate crime this year?” No, they would not—no one would. Why? Because it is not a choice. We all know who we are in this room. So what gives us the right to tell other people that they are not who they know they are, and to leave the door open for already vulnerable young people to be preyed upon by religious zealots and hateful bigots?

Every child and young person deserves the opportunity to be loved, respected and nurtured—to be a positive force in this world. There is no need for a slanging match on this issue. Not everybody is like the social norms we hold up in society, and that is okay; it is what makes us different, what we should be embracing. We are talking about real people—normal young people—but if we continue on the current path, they will only grow into adults who are severely damaged or, in some cases, dead. They will be dead because the Government did not change something from wrong to right with a flick of a pen on a piece of legislation. We need a meaningful ban on an abhorrent and evil practice.

I came to this House to do what I thought was the right thing—to protect those who are the most vulnerable—and I would like to think that every single Member in this room made that same choice: not to take sides and to argue this to the death, but to find solutions to these problems. That is why we in Labour have said that we will ban all forms of conversion therapy—no excuses, no loopholes; no one can consent to abuse.

It was disappointing to hear some of the accusations from the Government that a ban would inevitably criminalise parents talking to their children. That is a ludicrous suggestion. Parents should always be able to speak to their children, just as I am very fortunate to be able to speak to my daughter. What we do not want, however, is parents sending their kids on a course to have the gay prayed out of them. The Government cannot afford to get this wrong; too many lives are literally at stake. My hopes and prayers are that we will—

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for calling this debate. I come to this debate from a religious perspective. I am a serving Roman Catholic. I have worshipped at the same church on Brixton Road all my life. My life revolves around that church. I was not baptised there, but my sisters were. I met my husband there, and my children and my mum were baptised there.

We have to be clear that there are a number of people in the Christian faith who are proud of their sexuality, proud to be LGBT. It is important that religious leaders can offer support and counselling, because for many people in our communities, the church is the first support group. They trust the church more than politicians.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the church and faith settings, does the hon. Member agree that any proposed ban will impinge on many people in a faith setting? They may wish, as mature adults, to go to a meeting—a formal or informal discussion setting—to talk about sexual matters, but they might feel that a ban would restrict that, or prevent them from doing that. That is because of the very radical agenda being pursued by some, not all, of the activists.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. We need the Government to be clear, so that church leaders do not feel that they will be targeted on this. We should be happy and proud when it comes to GAY: God adores you. God adores all of us. That is the Bible that I was taught.

We must look at the timing of this debate. We have to be honest: this practice is not right; it has done untold harm to many LGBT people. A study in the US found that those who had undergone conversion therapy were twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts—that is a sin in the Bible. We need to look at how we can help people. That is not a rare occurrence; according to the 2017 national LGBT survey in the UK, one in 50 people who had undergone conversion therapy made suicide attempts. For trans respondents, that number was one in seven. Those figures should worry and horrify us. Sadly, a succession of Governments have been either too uninterested or too weak to act on that.

I understand that for some in the Government, this issue may be difficult, but we should not put it in the “too difficult” box. Plans for a ban were first introduced three ex-Prime Ministers ago in July 2018—more than five years ago—but after years of consultation, delays and rumours, those plans were missing from the King’s Speech last month. That is yet another promise that the Government have broken. I invite the Minister, who I know cares about this passionately, to think about the impact of that unacceptable delay.

[Ian Paisley]

I am fascinated to see that there is demand for policy and action on the issue on both sides of the House. I want to know, as both a parent and a legislator, what the proposal is. Does the hon. Member believe, for example, that parents should be excluded from knowledge about what drugs our children are taking? Should there be a lower threshold for giving out those drugs? It is absolutely essential that we know that.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. I speak as a parent of an eight-year-old and a six-year-old. I want to know what is happening in my children’s lives, but we must be honest: some parents are bad parents, and children need to be protected. It is important that those parents who cause harm to their children should not make decisions about those children’s lives. That is my personal view.

After years of delays, we see yet another broken promise. We must think about the message that sends to the LGBTQ+ community. We have seen hate crime increase. Hate crime based on sexual orientation has gone up by 70% since 2018-19. In my constituency of Vauxhall, there have been disturbing attacks, rooted in suspected homophobia. When our LGBTQ+ community needs support, the Government are simply not on their side; they are dragging their feet on the issue.

I urge the Minister to think about the issue today. We on the Labour Benches support a ban on conversion practices, and want to ensure that all the areas and communities that are worried have their say and are fully consulted. The Minister needs to ensure that a Bill comes forward. Countless Conservative MPs have promised to deliver a ban, but have failed to deliver. The Minister should come forward with a full pledge today, and look at how we can introduce the ban in this Parliament as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. Men and women are peculiar. All of us are characterised by as many particularities, preferences and preoccupations as can possibly be imagined. When we look from a distance, the beach looks uniform; when we get closer, every pebble is different, and so are we. Yet there is a constant in all our lives, and that constant is change, with all its joys and sorrows.

Change is at its most profound when we are growing, maturing and developing, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said. Some changes are permanent and some are ephemeral, but coping with both means learning from others—often others who know much more. Sometimes we need to ask; sometimes we need to question. If, in the secret garden of love, which is adorned with flowers of all kinds, some blooms are perpetual and some fade, and if we are told that what we choose is no longer permitted and that we need to be forced to grow a different flower altogether, can that be right? Can that be squared with the eclecticism, the strangeness and the particularity of life? For me, it cannot.

Exploring desire is a journey that we all travel. Being guided, counselled and advised sometimes helps us to navigate our way on that difficult journey. Prohibiting guidance, in my judgment, is a short step from a ban on friendship—friendship, which may make burdens lighter and suffocate the fire of fear. Could we, in conscience, really want to make consensual, quiet conversations illegal? No one in this Chamber and no one who contributes to this debate wants cruel, inhumane and spiteful interventions in people’s particular and very different lives. Surely, we cannot ban the freedom to speak, to put our case, and to converse.

I glory in our differences in all its richness, and I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on what I thought was an outstanding speech. Life is complicated, and in the mists of its confusion is the torch of free speech and free thought, which burns brightly.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about life being complicated, it is complicated for a number of people, including the many black and minority ethnic people who still, to this day, have not had the courage to come out because of the stigma and fear. Does he not appreciate that those practices make it even harder for those people to speak out and be their true selves?

[Sir John Hayes]

If the hon. Lady is speaking of what I described as cruel and spiteful interventions in quiet, or sometimes less quiet, lives, then yes, of course. However, if she is referring to the kind of conversations that I described, which help people to navigate their way through life, would she really want those prohibited and made unlawful? I cannot think she would.

When we consider cancellations, bans and prohibitions —on whatever grounds, but particularly on the grounds of activists who legitimise them on the basis that they are progressive and that anyone who opposes them is a heretic—I say that if to be part of a crusade against puritanical militant transsexuals is heretical, then sign me up. If it is heresy to say that sex is a biological fact, then count me in. On that basis, I am proud to be a heretic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Obviously I have read it, and I look forward to seeing the final report. It will be an important area of work. I cannot give specifics on timing, but if PLS is being done at the time, I imagine it will include consideration of the review’s findings.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I know that the Minister cares deeply and passionately about the issue. I commend him for his honesty about his personal experience, but, equally—I do not impose my faith on anyone—I recognise that many people in the faith community welcome everybody and respect them for who they are. On the issue of parents and schools, after every little scratch or sneeze, I get a letter home about what my children are doing. We will work through this with schools and, in the case of the small minority of parents who, sadly, do not have the best interests of their children at heart, we will make sure that the legislation protects those children.

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I have always been welcomed at every church to which I have been since that time.

[Florence Eshalomi]

You are welcome at my church.

[Stuart Andrew]

Thank you. That is very nice. Society has moved on, but some people are still subjected to pretty horrific experiences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member raises an important matter. That is why the Government are legislating in this space, through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which gives the CMA huge new powers, particularly over some of our largest online platforms—platforms that have what we describe as strategic market status. This is world-leading legislation that will tackle many of the examples of detriment that he will be aware of and that he raises in his question today.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What steps she is taking to maintain access to high street postal services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The Government protect the post office branch network by setting access criteria and minimum service levels to be provided by branches across the country. More post offices have opened this year than have closed. The network is as large today as it has been for five years, with around 11,700 branches open, above the 11,500 target that we set for the Post Office.

[Florence Eshalomi]

The Minister mentioned that more post offices are opening. Actually, they are closing. The Clapham Common post office in my Vauxhall constituency has been earmarked for closure and there are no current plans to replace it. I am fighting this closure, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and local ward councillors in the Communications Workers Union. This is a pattern that we are seeing across the country. It has been identified that 260 postal shopfronts have closed across the country in the past 10 years. With those closures, we are seeing elderly and vulnerable people—people who need their post offices on the high street—having to travel further. Will the Minister tell me what more he and the Government are doing to protect these vital services?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Post Office has launched a public consultation regarding the Clapham Common post office. The Post Office maintains that locals will continue to have good access to services. There is a post office within a mile of the Clapham Road branch, and three further branches within two miles. Nevertheless, the Government support the post office network with a significant amount of financial support—£2.5 billion over the past 10 years—so we do continue to support post offices. We know how important they are to constituents and other colleagues in this House. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

First, I praise my hon. Friend for the amazing job he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brazil. Partly due to his efforts, UK-Brazil trade has increased by 33% in the past year alone, so we are doing a very good job there. The UK-Brazil double taxation agreement was passed into UK law in June, and is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the UK. I hope that Brazil ratifies the agreement soon: it is very much in its own interests as well. As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor has made very strong representations to that effect, and we look forward to strengthening our trade relationship at the next UK-Brazil joint economic and trade committee next year.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. Under current laws, unions are required to use electronic means to communicate with their members about matters relating to work, yet are prevented from using the very same electronic methods when balloting their members for industrial action. Does the Minister accept that it should be possible to ballot trade union members on industrial action electronically?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is something we are looking at; we have been looking at it for some time, and are keen to bring forward the results of our deliberations very shortly.