Antisemitic Offences

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for securing this very important debate.

It has been the most horrific time since the attack in Israel. I was in the country with a delegation from Labour Friends of Israel almost three weeks to the day before the attack occurred, and I visited the Kfar Aza kibbutz. Luckily for the young lady who showed us around, she was with her husband and family further up, near Tel Aviv, at the time of the attack, so they survived. Sadly, her parents did not, and she is having to deal with that grief. Having seen the close proximity to Gaza, I just cannot imagine the fear that they must have all felt for the hours and hours that the attack went on, and the horror and atrocities that occurred. I am someone who witnessed the footage that the Israeli embassy shared with some of us, and there are things in it that I will never, ever forget.

As the hon. Member for West Bromwich East has outlined for us today, the wave of antisemitism we have seen across the country since 7 October is shocking and appalling. We have heard “Burn the Jews!” shouted at protest marches. Jewish children have been advised not to wear their school blazers. Swastikas have been graffitied in public places, and Jewish schools vandalised with red paint. Jews have been harassed, intimidated and assaulted in the street and as they leave their places of worship. The roll call of incidents is both long and shameful. It is shameful that in Britain, in 2024, our fellow citizens are subject to such racism and hatred. Sadly, however, it is not surprising.

As the Community Security Trust suggests, whenever Israel is at war there is an increase in antisemitism incidents, and an acute rise is usually reported specifically in and related to educational establishments, as the hon. Lady spoke about with regard to universities. None the less, the Community Security Trust suggests that, even compared with periods of previous conflicts involving Israel, the current statistics are unprecedented. This is grimly ironic, given that the state of Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven, after centuries of persecution which culminated in the Nazis’ attempt to annihilate Jewish history and the Jewish people of Europe. The persecution continues to this day.

Let us be clear: these antisemitic attacks are nothing less than the latest iteration of the oldest hatred. In the charges levelled against Zionists—that they control the media and the Government, that they are disloyal, greedy and bloodthirsty, and that they are ideologically akin to, and collaborated with, the Nazis—we see the repetition of classic antisemitic tropes and smears. Our country, which rightly prides itself on its tolerance and its rejection of extremism, cannot allow antisemitism to go unchecked and unchallenged. We need swift, tough and comprehensive action to tackle anti-Jewish racism.

First, as the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has rightly argued, we need an increase in policing and stronger action to tackle and monitor antisemitism, and we must ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle to hateful extremism. Secondly, it is appalling that Jewish venues and institutions need extra levels of security and protection, but as long as that remains the case, it is imperative that the Community Security Trust receives the funding it needs to do its vital job. Thirdly, what is said online rarely stays online. The hateful conspiracy theories and lies about Jews and Israel that are peddled on social media by antisemites directly contribute to racism on our streets. Social media companies must enforce their own rules against hate speech, and where crimes are committed, they must co-operate with the police to ensure that the guilty are punished.

Fourthly, in relation to universities, the National Union of Students and student unions must do more to fight antisemitism and to ensure the safety of Jewish students. At the same time, surveys indicate shocking levels of ignorance about the holocaust, and strong public support for greater holocaust education. The work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust is of paramount importance; they are on the frontline of the battle for hearts and minds.

Finally, Iran is a leading purveyor of holocaust denial, antisemitism and extremism. Its terrorist proxy armies slaughter Jews, while its ideological arm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, attempts to incite and perpetuate violence and spread disinformation globally, including throughout Britain. As Labour has argued, we must proscribe the IRGC and begin to turn off this pipeline of hatred.

In two weeks’ time, we will mark Holocaust Memorial Day. This year’s theme is the fragility of freedom, and that is especially relevant in the light of the antisemitism that we have seen on our streets over the past three months. Without security, there can be no freedom. Freedom from fear and violence is the prerequisite of any civilised country. We cannot allow Britain’s Jewish community to be denied that freedom.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I want to raise three concerns in particular regarding Teesworks and Teesside. First, there are serious questions on the oversight of contracts that the Tees Valley Combined Mayoral Authority or its bodies have entered into on the land deal and other contracts relating to Teesworks, and the management of the project is risking its success. Secondly, there needs to be more scrutiny over the process by which contracts are won, not only at Teesworks, but at a sister structure in the airport. Thirdly, the Government’s model of mayoral development corporations lacks sufficient local democratic scrutiny and accountability checks.

I want to add to the genuine arguments already made, in good faith, by colleagues in support of a full NAO investigation into Teesworks. There are simply questions that only the NAO can find the answers to—with every stone we overturn on Teesside, a new list of questions appears. Colleagues have already described the deal, so I will not repeat the details, but there are clearly questions that remain unanswered.

How did the developers first know to buy the option to lease from Redcar Bulk Terminal Ltd in 2019? What due diligence was done on their credentials to take over operations for the largest brownfield site in Europe? How much money have they personally risked on the project? Why was there no procurement exercise conducted for the relationship and no contract published?

Then there are the side deals that colleagues have touched upon. Failing an NAO audit on the entire project, will the Government’s independent investigation look beyond the land deal to the project’s side deals? Take Teesworks Quay Ltd, for example, or the contractors taking immense profits from the sites, and how those deals came about.

Those questions are all important, because we want to know that the progress of the project is by the book and that no corners are being cut, even though potential issues with the progress of the project have gained significant attention in the last year. Mass marine die-offs continue to plague north-east beaches, a worker only just survived after an excavator fell into the river and it is reported that relationships with significant industrial partners have flatlined, antagonised by the Mayor’s legal action. But the public relations operation churns on, aggrandising speculative jobs—as we have heard again in this debate—and investment brought to the area, and painting a picture that just does not match the reality.

Coming to my second point, I am interested to know whether the investigation will scrutinise the process by which contracts have been won generally. Again, my concerns have come about because questions raised about the oversight of the projects have been brushed away, obstructed or avoided. Teesworks’ sister structure at the airport, part of the freeport, is another Tees Valley CMA asset that has received millions of pounds of public money. The same two private developers at Teesworks became joint venture partners in Teesside International Airport Business Park in March 2020. What tender or public process was conducted for that?

Since the airport has struggled to reap rewards from the runway, it has turned to the business park to bring profit. In March, it awarded its first contract for the business park to GMI Construction Group. GMI was recorded as having paid for the lobbying services of Recognition Services Ltd, whose director, Graham Robb, conveniently sits on the South Tees Development Corporation board and reportedly does the Mayor’s public relations, too. What was the significance of that relationship in the awarding of the contract to GMI? What tender process took place, and why will the Mayor not assure the public that due diligence took place? We need to address exactly what is going on in Teesside with that web of connected parties.

That points to my final concern on the whole governance model in the Tees Valley Combined Authority. It is only right that constituents in places with combined authorities should be able to hold local leaders accountable to the same standards as they can the Government here in Westminster, but almost every week, we hear new, disturbing reports out of Teesside that legitimately question the probity, decision-making and value for money across different wings of Ben Houchen’s combined authority, following painstaking investigation from highly respected journalists.

Why has the Mayor been able to push decisions through, under the radar, with little or no scrutiny? What oversight of all those decisions really takes place, and why are the public not allowed to see any of it? Why are STDC and the developers allowed to mark their own homework? Why are the people responsible for the performance of projects also the judges of their progress? These basic questions point to a serious flaw in governance.

We are not raising these concerns to talk down Teesside. In fact, protecting and future-proofing the projects is the reason why these matters must be raised today. The stakes are so incredibly high; we need the projects to succeed. That does not mean closing more doors to scrutiny. Local accountability has clearly been unable to address these concerns, and Government supervision, or lack of, has allowed for what could be a huge failure in industrial strategy that affects the people of Teesside and our green ambitions.

This is an opportunity to finally right any wrongs by giving full investigatory remit to a body with the powers and capacity to probe deep into what has happened, including by ensuring that officials who have previously worked as part of STDC, the freeport or a related public body are free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that may exist. From there, we can learn lessons so that local communities can better scrutinise their combined authority Mayors through an operational structure that prevents conflicts of interest and the secrecy that has been so damaging to local politics and business relations on Teesside—maybe taking inspiration from the Welsh Government’s arrangements for Cardiff.

The Levelling Up Secretary knows that it is inevitable that this will all eventually come to light, so I implore him to allow a full NAO audit. If there is nothing to hide, why not open that door? For him to suggest that north-east colleagues are on a misinformation campaign is deeply disingenuous. Will he say the same of well-respected journalists, and news outlets such as the Financial Times, which are also asking these questions? I expect he will not.

I want these projects to be a success for Teesside and the wider north-east, which I care about deeply, but that should not mean that there are obstructions to finding out the truth. Selling a dream of success that does not match reality does not deliver that success to the people of Teesside. If the Government insist on proceeding with their own Department-led inquiry, it must answer the three concerns that I have laid out: why and how did the land deal and other contracts fall into private hands, what scrutiny is there of how wider contracts are won, and when will the Government remedy the gaps in oversight and accountability for the wider devolution ambition? Only once these questions have been addressed can we reassure Teesside communities that they are the priority, not private profit. Government obstruction without clear justification will only kick the can down the road, stalling any progress in the north-east. I urge the Government to reconsider their course of action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Fire and Rehire

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Murray. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on such an important subject and her excellent speech. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).

I first raised fire and rehire with the Prime Minister on 16 December 2020 at Prime Minister’s Question Time, after highly skilled engineers at Centrica British Gas were told they had to sign new contracts before Christmas or else they would be fired and rehired in the new year on worse terms. The Prime Minister’s response was deeply concerning:

“it is also vital that we have a flexible economy that is able to generate jobs, particularly when we are going to go through a very difficult and bumpy time.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 272.]

During this “very difficult and bumpy time”, as the Prime Minister put it, is exactly when people need stability and certainty in their lives. Yet according to Unite the Union, one in 10 workers is already threatened with fire and rehire, and many more are likely to face this manipulative process as furlough comes to an end.

Earlier this month, I was saddened to see approximately 350 British Gas engineers lose their jobs because they refused to sign a contract with worse terms and pay. Equally sad is the thousands upon thousands of other GMB members at British Gas signing new but worse contracts under duress. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) raised it with the Prime Minister just last week, he was not even aware of the issue. Four months on from my question, hundreds have been sacked and the Prime Minister still does not have an answer.

It is not just British Gas engineers either; fire and rehire is also used by British Airways in Heathrow, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will go into further detail on those disputes. Go North West drivers have been on strike for more than 50 days, while Jacobs Douwe Egberts coffee producers is starting an indefinite overtime ban on International Workers Day, 1 May, and engineers at Brush Electrical Machines are balloting for action against pay cuts of up to £15,000.

Fire and rehire is an exploitative and illegitimate negotiation tactic that causes real hurt and anger. Household names have betrayed decades of trust from the nation. These tactics damage not only their workforces but their customer base, who will feel the same way at the disgraceful way those businesses treat their employees. The Government have an opportunity with the upcoming Queen’s Speech to work with Labour and the relevant trade unions such as Unite and the GMB to introduce vital legislation that will ban fire and rehire practices and give workers the stability and assurances that they need at this—again in the Prime Minister’s own words—“very difficult and bumpy time”.

Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry, but we will have to move on to Sharon Hodgson.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that a public information campaign is required before and during the easing of lockdown, to inform employees and employers of their respective rights and duties, and to give the public confidence in returning to work?

[Paul Scully]

Communication is so important in this. We have seen how effective the message about staying home and saving lives has been so far. What we must now do is work with businesses to ensure that they have fully communicated the message on safe guidelines for their workplaces. Similarly, we need to make it clear to employees, as we are now doing, that those who cannot work from home, unless they are in a business that has specifically been asked to close, can travel to work, but they need to be considerate about that and ensure that they work within the social distancing rules. Yes, communication is everything, and I think we all have a responsibility to get those messages across.

Post Office and Horizon Software

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Allan]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that point, because many of these people have been suffering for many years. My constituent was one of the very first victims of this miscarriage of justice, with the event happening to her in 2000, so Members can imagine how she has suffered throughout that period. Indeed, her family have suffered, too.

I will move on to the question of how we get to the review of these convictions. A group litigation order was approved by the president of the Queen’s bench division, so it follows that a group remedy is possible when there are clearly common themes. One such common theme must surely be that convictions were achieved on the basis of the Horizon IT evidence, which Justice Fraser has ruled, as I said earlier, to be not “remotely robust” and prone to errors.

Dialogue with the Criminal Cases Review Commission has been helpful, and I am confident that it realises that the case is exceptional and should be treated as such, and that it will carefully consider all the common themes that would enable a referral to the Court of Appeal to be grouped. I very much hope that the CCRC continues with that mindset. I understand from my discussions with representatives of the Post Office that it would prefer each case to be treated separately. They have said that the Post Office will insist that those who pleaded guilty to false accounting should be excluded from the process. However, it seems to me that that should not be a matter for the Post Office to involve itself in. Should the cases be referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal, the Post Office will be a respondent. It would be wholly wrong for the Post Office to be involved in any decisions around the mechanisms for the quashing of the convictions, given that the convictions are of people whom it sought to prosecute.

One of the representatives of the Post Office said to me that he doubts many cases will be referred to the Court of Appeal and that those that do are unlikely to succeed. It seems to me that rather than learning the lessons and moving forward, as the Post Office suggests it has, it is in fact still intent on protecting the interests of the institution at all costs. That is hugely damaging to the Post Office. We love the Post Office. We support the Post Office and we want it to thrive, but to continue with that mindset, which Justice Fraser referred to as “institutional obstinacy”, is not only damaging to the Post Office brand and reputation, but adds insult to injury for those who have suffered as a direct consequence of its failure to see the world as round.

I have huge admiration for the Minister, who I know is a man of enormous integrity with an inquiring mind. He will, I have no doubt, read around the subject in depth, and I wish him well in his new role as Minister for the Post Office. With a new Minister in post, a new Government in office and a fine judgment from Justice Fraser, we have an opportunity to get justice done. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how Government can help postmasters overturn wrongful convictions in a timely manner. I urge him to work with the excellent Minister for miscarriages of justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to see how Government can help to support the CCRC in these unique circumstances and ensure that the Post Office and its management stay well out of these decisions.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

As well as encouraging the Minister to see whether there is a way to overturn these wrongful convictions, does the hon. Lady agree that he should see if there is a way that people such as my constituent, who suffered losses of more than £100,000 and was forced to sell his business, are rightfully compensated? When I heard the size of the award, I was so pleased for all my constituents, but the majority of it seems to have gone on legal fees. My constituent tells me that he will receive hardly any of the £100,000 he lost, not to mention compensation. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government should seek to ensure that the majority of the award goes to the victims?

[Lucy Allan]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is unbelievable that the announcement was made by the Post Office on 11 December, when we all know what we were doing on 12 December. It was supposed to be part of a confidentiality agreement, and the Post Office announced that £57 million was to be paid to sub-postmasters when that was of course not the case. That is further evidence of the way in which the Post Office has conducted itself throughout the process. It is not acceptable to mislead in that way. The judge said almost the same thing regarding some of the evidence that was put before him. I therefore fully agree that that was a shameful part of this saga, although the whole saga is deeply shameful.

I invite the Minister to consider the many very real conflicts of interest. I will not outline them all, but I will put on record that his Department owns the equity in the Post Office, provides up to £1 billion in debt funding, approves the board, monitors performance, and provides annual grants. Last year’s grant was £50 million. I will say no more on that, but I will give him a list of the conflicts of interest, which also include personnel, at a later date. In a modern business environment, we need to be alert to the fact that such conflicts do not prevent justice from being done.

I am encouraged by discussions with Ministers and across parties. There is a clear will in Parliament to move forward and see justice done. Whatever obstacles the Post Office continues to put in the way, I hope it senses the appetite in Parliament and hears the voice of the judge in this case. The Post Office needs to stop putting obstacles in the way of justice; it is doing the organisation no favours whatever.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the Post Office has had the opportunity to be part of the solution over and over again, and that that time has passed. Given all its actions throughout, including the mediation process back in 2015 that it simply cancelled—it did not like what the forensic accountants were saying, and it fired them—the Post Office has had its opportunity to be part of the solution. Its behaviour in the litigation suggests that it has no interest whatever in finding a solution for postmasters; its interests lie in preserving the institution no matter what.

I hope we can all ensure that the Post Office does not stand in the way of the work of the CCRC or the Court of Appeal. I put on record my thanks to the campaign group, which has done amazing work against the odds, and to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who allowed this debate. I know that many others wanted to be granted a debate on this subject, and I am grateful that I was given the opportunity. It is we, in this place, who must now find a solution to this grotesque injustice—a miscarriage of justice of immense proportions—and we must do so whatever the obstacles, come what may.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this important debate.

This extremely serious matter has raised worrying questions about the management and governance structures of Post Office Ltd and the way in which the Government oversee it as a public body. I pay tribute to the many sub-postmasters who have endured the harsh realities of this national scandal. Among them is Alan Bates, who has spearheaded the litigation that ultimately saw sub-postmasters get some of the vindication they deserved. Like Mr Bates, I know that the successful litigation was the first step towards achieving justice. I also pay tribute to journalist Nick Wallis, who has followed the case from the beginning and has been a passionate champion for the sub-postmasters’ cause over many years.

This debate relates specifically to the review of criminal cases, so I am disappointed that the Ministry of Justice is not responding to it. Will the Minister explain why it is a BEIS representative who is responding, when the topic of the debate was intended to fall under the brief of the Ministry of Justice?

The wrongful conviction of sub-postmasters has had an impact on the lives of far too many individuals and their families. People have lost their livelihoods, had their businesses stolen from them and, in many cases, been ostracised from their communities. For those affected, that has been a living nightmare.

One young woman began her career as a sub-postmaster at the age of 18, but after prosecution and conviction she has faced unemployment and financial ruin at a time when her adult life and independence should have begun. Another sub-postmaster whose life was turned upside down was bankrupted by legal fees and shunned by the community he had so diligently served. His neighbours would not speak to him, and his daughter was spat at on the bus to school. In one of the most tragic examples, one sub-postmaster took their own life, such was the shame, anxiety and stress that the Post Office’s heavy-handed pursuit of them brought on. Sub-postmasters who were implicated in Horizon’s IT failures have been wrongly labelled as criminals, had their lives turned upside down and, in some cases, faced decades of debt and social disgrace.

On 11 December, while we were all busy with our election campaigns, the sub-postmasters’ fight for justice took a huge step forward. The Post Office agreed to pay a £58 million settlement to the 557 sub-postmasters who brought court action against it. Mr Justice Fraser noted in his ruling that the Post Office felt entitled to treat sub-postmasters

“in capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory-owner.”

That falls far below the standards we would expect from one of Britain’s most recognisable and trusted institutions. Mr Justice Fraser also raised concerns about the structure of accountability within the Post Office, stating that it appeared

“to conduct itself as though it is answerable only to itself.”

That was evident in the way in which the Post Office handled its litigation; it was noted that the Post Office pursued the trial with the resources and effort of a blue-chip tech company.

It is worth remembering that litigation was brought to address the errors of a Government-owned company, which was ultimately found at fault for the vicious pursuit and prosecution of hundreds of sub-postmasters. The Post Office is a Government-owned company. A civil servant sits on the board and its only shareholder is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so more should have been done to address the scandal before it was allowed to fester to this extent.

In the light of the number of wrongful convictions, a group expungement of the criminal records of those convicted seems the most suitable way forward. Unfortunately, the Post Office has resisted that idea and would prefer each sub-postmaster to bring their own legal action to overturn their conviction. That is completely outrageous. People who have lived for many years through the scandal and lost everything, including their savings and reputations, are now being asked to go back to court to give their own evidence, despite Mr Justice Fraser’s finding that the Horizon computer system by Fujitsu was at fault. The Post Office was alerted to those faults many years ago, so it should not have any illusions about the system’s effectiveness.

It is striking that the Post Office seems to have learned nothing from the unnecessary prosecutions of 557 hard-working sub-postmasters or from the huge amount of anger expressed by judges, parliamentarians and the public. Instead, it forges ahead as though it has done nothing wrong. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to move towards overturning, quickly and fairly, the convictions of the sub-postmasters affected by Horizon.

Serious questions need to be answered about the relationship between the company and the Government. The Government have been content to parrot the Post Office’s line throughout the process, claiming that the December settlement was the end of the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth for the people who are still fighting for justice.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and has long been an advocate on this issue, is making a powerful case. Does she agree that, although the scandal is outrageous and should never have happened, the Government and Select Committee investigations need to follow the money? People lost their livelihoods to pay that money back, so where did it go? Where was the shortfall? Somewhere, there are bulks of money that obviously went to the Post Office, which should use it to pay the legal fees as part of the compensation.

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. People have paid money, so where is it? That must be at the heart of any investigation.

Unfortunately, fundamental corporate change within the Post Office seems a long way off, given the close relationship between both current and previous Post Office officials and the Government. The Post Office is being allowed to mark its own homework, meaning that a culture of denial is likely to persist. Could the Minister explain why Paula Vennells, the former chief executive of the Post Office, whom Judge Fraser noted was practising

“the 21st-century equivalent of maintaining the earth is flat”,

serves in the Cabinet Office?

The management and governance of the Post Office were severely criticised by the judges, so I raised the issue with the previous Minister. Will the new Minister call for a full review of the governance and management and of the relationship between the two? Furthermore, will he look closely at the way in which the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is fully paid and resourced by the Post Office, has acted throughout the affair?

It is important that the taxpayer is not left to foot the bill for mistakes made by management. In December 2019, BEIS paid the Post Office £50 million as a network subsidy payment to cover the operating costs for the network. Will the Minister assure us that not a penny of that public money will be used to fund the December 2019 settlement or any future litigation?

The consistent failings of the Post Office, spanning more than two decades, have caused immeasurable damage to hundreds of lives. Only now is the full picture beginning to emerge. I welcome the commitment from the Prime Minister for a full public inquiry into the issue. I have already written to ask him to confirm that that is the case, and to give me timescales. Unsurprisingly, I have not received a letter back to that effect.

The convictions we have discussed today, however, must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The Post Office and the Government must wake up and use every influence to ensure that the seriousness of the situation is realised. I hope this debate is one step in helping to move this process along. We must secure an independent, judge-led inquiry to quash the convictions, to pay up what the convicted have lost and, most of all, to clear the names of those hard-working decent people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Forgive the love-in, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend is a constant and persistent champion for his constituents in the many beautiful villages that he represents. He is quite right to identify an issue that a number of people have raised with me across the country—namely, the transparency of the Planning Inspectorate. That organisation is in the process of implementing the measures outlined in the Rosewell review in order for planning inquiries to provide more transparency. We are, at the moment, procuring a new online IT system—dread words in Government, I know, but nevertheless we are—that will allow progress of appeals to be tracked, providing exactly the sort of transparency that he is looking for.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

T3. Since doing a constituency survey on leaseholds, I have been continually shocked by case after case of unfair charges and rises, such as sinking fund costs going from zero to £250 without any warning. I therefore welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation into leaseholds, but what assurances can the Minister give to current leaseholders who face increasing costs? Will he put a moratorium on new leaseholds while the CMA does its work, to ensure that there are fewer victims?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady might be interested to know that there are fewer houses being built as leaseholds in England since the mid-1990s. The numbers have come right down, but she is right to highlight the work of the Competition and Markets Authority. As she knows, I called for the CMA to look into these abuses. There have been appalling examples, and she highlights some. We are determined to bear down on this. We have the new industry pledge, but I keep this under close review, given the issues that have been raised.

Housing

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Land Registry figures estimate that 19% of property sales in my constituency in 2017 involved leasehold homes. That is nearly one in five homebuyers who are experiencing the injustices of the leasehold process. I have received 54 responses to a consultation that I launched on this matter, and there was an overwhelming sense of injustice and frustration with the leasehold process, in line with the findings of the Select Committee. Constituents made comments such as:

“I feel stuck in a loop”,

and said that they felt that they were “being held hostage”. Others said:

“I’ll have nothing to leave for my children”.

One of the most common situations I have heard about is when homeowners wish to move home in order to downsize before retirement, but no company will offer a mortgage on the property because the lease is not long enough. Those people either have to find someone to buy the property cash in hand, or extend the lease. But extending the lease costs at least £10,000 and is frankly not an option for many of my constituents, who want to use that money to live on for the rest of their retirement.

The Minister has stated many times that at least there is choice in the property market for those who may not wish to buy freehold, but the evidence collected by the Select Committee and the heartfelt responses I have received suggest that this so-called choice is anything but. It is not a choice if there is a lack of information about what leasehold means, and 36% of the responses to my survey indicated that people were unaware of what leasehold meant at the point of sale. It is not a choice when homebuyers are not told that the property is leasehold until the very day that they are signing for their new home, which is what three of my constituents told me had happened to them. It was also not a choice for 13 of my constituents who told me that, after saving up and wishing to buy the freehold, and paying numerous administrative fees—in the hundreds of pounds—the freeholder simply said that they were not willing to sell at that point. It is not a choice for those families.

Another injustice is that of leases being sold by the freeholder to third-party companies, without any consultation, correspondence or notice given to the leaseholder. Where is the accountability? My constituents are telling me of their increased anxiety at the fact that their property does not “feel like their own”, and saying that

“outside people control their destiny”.

Does the Minister agree that this is not a healthy situation for any family to go through? This is the home that people have worked for, saved for and are paying for. I hope that she understands that this is not just a case of a few people feeling a little disgruntled at the system. I hope that she will really take into consideration the well-researched Select Committee recommendations, and specifically consider an investigation into the widespread mis-selling of leases.

Local Government Funding Settlement

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

With the additional funding announced in the Budget, the Government will have given councils access to £10 billion of dedicated funding that can be used for adult social care in the three-year period to 2019-20. I know that longer-term reforms are obviously required to put the system on a sustainable basis. That is why we have now gained the £650 million to support councils in dealing with a number of these pressures. Again, I highlight how we deliver care and support better by having stronger linkages between our NHS and our council services, which this will help drive.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

For two weeks running, I have asked the Prime Minister about the devastating funding challenges that the Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service is facing. I know she has been a bit busy, so she may not have had time to have a word with the Secretary of State. In the light of the fact that funding local services such as social care, fire services and the police through the council tax precept just does not work in areas such as mine, as he well knows, and that the reserves have already been allocated, how does he propose to fill these drastic funding gaps?

[James Brokenshire]

I would be pleased to discuss this further with the hon. Lady. I would highlight that, overall, fire and rescue services will receive about £2.3 billion in 2019-20. She talked about the reserves. Certainly, the financial reserves held by single-purpose fire and rescue authorities increased by over 80%—to £545 million— between 31 March 2011 and 31 March 2018, which is equivalent to 42% of their core spending power. However, I will certainly reflect further on the points the hon. Lady has made, and I look forward to discussing them with her.

Protection for Homebuyers

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this important debate. I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in speaking about leasehold issues that relate to the protection of homebuyers.

An estimated 12.4% of homes sold in Washington and Sunderland West were sold as leasehold in 2016. I realise that my constituency does not have the largest number of leasehold homes—certainly not as many as the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends—but the issue is still important to my constituents. That is why I recently began a consultation on leasehold homes in which I asked constituents to get in touch with me about their experiences. I only launched the campaign three weeks ago, but 30 constituents have already written to me with their concerns, in some cases in detail. I do not have time to go into the details of each, but I would like to share the themes that have become apparent from their emails.

Most homebuyers were not aware what a leasehold was when they purchased their home. There is a serious lack of knowledge about what leasehold and freehold are; I feel that developers have a duty to inform prospective buyers about the difference between the two and what it means for them. As we have heard, solicitors also have a part to play. It makes a person wonder who they act on behalf of—the buyer or the developer—especially when the developer includes free conveyancing as part of the sale. Solicitors should always act in the best interest of their client, who in this case should be the buyer, not the developer. I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is not in her place at the moment, that this abuse should be referred to the Law Society. I hope that the Minister will make that recommendation; I am sure it is in her power to refer dodgy solicitors to the Law Society.

Does the Minister agree that if we are to protect homebuyers, we should educate them to know the difference between leasehold and freehold so that they can make the best decision for themselves and their families? That should certainly be the case for first-time buyers, and financial education lessons in schools have an important part to play in achieving that.

Notwithstanding the issue of educating the population as a whole, there should be complete transparency from very early on in the sale about whether the property is leasehold and what that means. Two of my constituents have told me that they were not informed that their property was leasehold until the very day of signing the contract. Another has told me that they were not aware that their property was leasehold until nearly 15 years after the original purchase—probably when they tried to make alterations or build an extension. Because of the lack of knowledge about leaseholds and the lack of information available to homebuyers, there is a lot of confusion and variation when it comes to buying the freehold.

Many leaseholders were told that they could purchase the freehold at a later date, perhaps when they had saved enough money. However, when some constituents inquired about purchasing the freehold, they found that the goalposts had moved and the price was much further out of reach than they had expected. Some have even been informed that the freehold is now not for sale—in some cases because it has been sold to a third-party company without the leaseholder’s knowledge.

Not only is the cost of buying the freehold out of reach for some of my constituents; so is the cost of ground rent, which can increase year on year. Then there are the admin fees that homeowners have to pay when asking the freeholder’s permission to make changes to their own property. One of my constituents was charged £400 by the freeholder to build a conservatory on their own property. Another constituent expressed great frustration that they are charged £100 for a yes or no decision on basic things, such as replacing a kitchen, bathroom or even a window. It can sometimes take more than eight weeks to hear back on whether that is a yes or a no.

I know that some leaseholders out there listening will now be horrified and will be deterred from making queries to the freeholder, for fear of being charged some of these exorbitant fees. Too many leaseholders are locked into a state of being regularly over charged by freeholders, being unable to afford their ever-increasing ground rent, or never being able to afford to buy their freehold due it to being linked to some sort of escalator that was hidden in the small print of the contract, which their solicitor never pointed out to them. I share the concerns of my constituents who feel like they have been ripped off by leasehold contracts and I call on the Government to launch an inquiry into the scandal as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for securing this important debate. It is not before time that the House has had the opportunity to turn to the issues faced by homebuyers, in particular the buyers of new-build homes. At a time when we all recognise the need for substantial home building, we perhaps give too little thought to what happens after the homes are built, bought and sold, and to what happens to the buyers.

My hon. Friend has already spoken about the problems faced when defects are found after purchase and the difficulty of getting a response, let alone a solution, from the house builders. I can certainly echo her concern from experience in my constituency, but I want to look at a couple of other issues that also affect my constituents. The first is that of the completion and adoption of new housing estates. It has very much been a preoccupation for me, not just as an MP but as a local councillor in the years before that.

A new Barratt/David Wilson Homes and Persimmon Homes development was started more than 10 years ago. I will not name it because the residents have mixed views on whether that would be a good thing. Some householders were already living on the site when development stalled in about 2011, because many would-be buyers were unable to find mortgages after the banking crisis. It picked up again, however, and the last house was sold nearly two years ago—most of them long before that.

Families moved in with the promise of play areas for their children, but it took years for them to appear and, as many of those who bought early said, their children were now grown up and not interested in play areas—although, thankfully, the many younger children on the estate are. Buses that were promised to take people from the estate to the local bus interchange, avoiding the need to use a level crossing, did not materialise. The council proposed a price to adopt play areas and public open spaces, but the developers thought the price too high and opted to go with a private management company. Even now, however—one of the companies, Barratt’s David Wilson Homes, has been updating me—they are still arguing about the cost and arrangements of that contract, meaning that residents are concerned about maintenance and safety into the future, and of course about the appearance of their estate.

A spine road runs through the estate, in a loop from one entrance to the other, but it was not until this year that work started on completing the surfacing of the road and installing kerbs for drainage. Checking that latest update I received, I find that the date for completion of the work has been pushed back to January ’19. Residents are very concerned about that, with lots of young children on the estate and cars flying about on a very uneven surface. They are worried about damage to the cars but they are much more worried about damage to the children, who until recently had nowhere else to play. Furthermore, no fees have yet been paid to the council for the adoption of the roads, despite its best efforts, and street lighting is not finally sorted out. I could go on—but we get the picture.

We—residents, local councillors and me—have not sat back and let that happen. We have met with the developers, looked at enforcement action and complained like hell. We even had a liaison committee with the two developers, to work through all the issues, but, sadly, despite hours of talk, everything seems to come down to money and the developers not wanting to spend the money on the estate to complete it.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend is making some valuable points that have not been mentioned so far. The issue of unadopted roads came up on a new-build development in my constituency, especially with regard to an area where shops, the takeaway, restaurants, pubs and things have been built. The roads are unadopted, so people can just park wherever they like, creating huge issues with knock-on effects, such as on safety, which she has mentioned. I raised this in an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the main Chamber, and it would be great if something came out of this debate regarding unadopted roads on new-build estates.

[Liz Twist]

My hon. Friend reminds me of something else that I should have mentioned: at the time of buying the properties, my homebuyers were told that there would be a shop, a pub and a bus, but none of those things has come to pass. Even while we were telling residents that that was not going to happen, new buyers towards the end were still being told that there was going to be a pub on site—all the residents already knew that that was not going to happen. That is an important point, and she made another one about safety. As we all know, parking on new developments is a huge issue, with residents feeling it is insufficient and with the dangers that that can present.

[Mrs Hodgson]

On that very point, I am grateful that my hon. Friend has given way, because I do not think that I made myself clear—though she probably knew what I meant. Because the roads are unadopted, there are no yellow lines. On the roundabouts, articulated lorries can pull over to park, and no one can move them on because there are no yellow lines or anything—the roads are all still unadopted. That is a major problem in the whole area. Some measure should provide for temporary adoption of the roads for safety reasons, even while the estate is still being built.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Lady poses a number of questions, all of which are very interesting. I will reread Hansard after the debate and take on board what I can.

The Government agree that the situation is unfair, so we intend to introduce a new statutory regime and are considering whether freeholders should have a right to change the provider of maintenance services by applying to the tribunal for appointment of a new manager, which may be useful if a freeholder is dissatisfied with the service they are receiving. As it happens, my officials are now analysing the responses and the Government intend to bring forward legislation to implement changes as soon as parliamentary time allows.

We move on to another area in this vast debate, home buying and selling. Around 1 million homes are bought and sold in England each year, but another 25% to 33% of planned sales fall through, costing consumers around £270 million and creating stress for far too many people. The Government published our response to the home buying and selling call for evidence in April 2018, setting out an ambitious programme of action to make the buying and selling process in England cheaper, faster and less stressful, in line with our manifesto commitment. There is no silver bullet that can change everything at a stroke and fix the process. Instead, we will need to make a number of practical changes, some big, some small, which taken together will make the experience much better. To put hon. Members’ minds at rest, we as a Government are here to tackle those issues.

We have already started work. We have created a new working group focusing on the regulation of property agents, chaired by Lord Best. We have begun working with industry and the National Trading Standards estate agency team to develop guidance on making referral fees more transparent and to look at the case for banning them. We have also doubled the funding available to that team. We have written to all local authorities reminding them of the Government’s ambition to have a property search request completed within 10 working days. We have consulted in implementing reforms to the leasehold system, seeking views on fixed timeframes and maximum fees for freeholders and managing agents to provide leasehold information.

We have held workshops with industry to develop detailed and thorough how-to-buy and how-to-sell guides to inform consumers, to be published in 2019. We have started work with industry and consumers to make conveyancing data more transparent so that buyers and sellers can make a more informed choice and we have worked with industry to develop a standardised reservation agreement. We will commission behavioural insight analysis to support its implementation; it will increase commitment between buyers and sellers much earlier in the process. Together, our reforms will create a much better process, which guides buyers and sellers and gives them the information they need at the time they need it, allowing them to make the biggest purchase of their lives with confidence.

I confirm to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that I will write to him regarding cladding and sprinklers. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West kindly brought up the question of VAT on service charges. As he will know, that is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury, but it is something that has only recently raised its head, so I will write to him about that.

On bonuses for those larger businesses, we announced in August that we are helping to improve shareholder scrutiny of executive pay, strengthen the employee voice in boardrooms and build confidence in how large companies are run. Under those reforms, all quoted companies will be required to disclose and explain annually the rationale for the chief executive’s pay and the ratio to the average pay of their UK employees. The new reforms will provide greater transparency on the impact of share growth and executive pay.

The Government have been clear that this should be a country that works for everyone. That means building more of the right homes in the right places and ensuring the housing market works for all parts of our community. We must ensure that ordinary people purchasing a new home have the protection they deserve and are treated fairly.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I was listening carefully to the Minister, but I may have missed this—if I did, I am very sorry. I wonder if she could say something about a point that both my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I mentioned, about referring some of these dodgy lawyers, conveyancers or solicitors to the Law Society when they are not acting in the best interests of their client, who should be the buyer.

[Mrs Wheeler]

Absolutely. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not hear me say it, but the Secretary of State has written to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the SRA.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Thank you.

[Mrs Wheeler]

My absolute pleasure. We must ensure that everybody has the protection they deserve and is treated fairly, and that all efforts are made to ensure that builders build to the standards and finishes that we expect. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for securing this valuable debate, and I look forward to her summing-up speech, right now.