Commons Chamber
Thursday 2 July 2026
The House met at half past Nine o’clock
Prayers
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Secretary of State was asked—
The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights into the 21st century, with phased implementation to give businesses and workers, including those in Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, time to get ready and understand their new rights at work. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one paternity leave rights and launched the Fair Work Agency. We continue to consult on measures such as zero hours contracts and non disclosure agreements to get the details right. Further changes will happen in October, including trade union reform and better protection from sexual harassment.
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs. For too long, many workers have been expected to keep themselves available for work without any certainty over the hours or income that they would receive. The right to guaranteed hours was designed to change that. As those provisions are implemented, what practical difference does the Minister expect they will make to working people across the country?
Through the right to guaranteed hours, we are tackling one sided flexibility. Qualifying workers are offered contracts that better reflect their hours, and they can then plan their lives and finances. Over 1.2 million people work on a zero hours contract, and research published by the Living Wage Foundation in 2022 found that 87% of zero hours workers said that they want more hours in their contract. My hon. Friend will understand the terrible consequences and the impact that not knowing their regular hours or how much they will earn that month can have on people’s lives, including the severe impacts of not being able to feed their kids or know whether they can pay their bills. We are working to get the details right and to get businesses, workers and trade unions to engage in our recent consultation so that we can achieve both flexibility and security.
The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?
The hon. Member might not have read the updated impact assessment, which significantly lowered that amount, following the passing of the Employment Rights Act towards the end of last year, to £1 billion. On supporting small and medium sized enterprises, we want to work closely with them because many across the country are already doing lots of the things that are in the Employment Rights Act. They also understand that treating their workers fairly benefits their business and makes the economy grow. I am grateful to the small and medium sized businesses that I have worked with and which fed directly into the details of the Act. I want to work closely with them to understand the impacts and where we can get this right, and to work on the details. I thank them for their engagement, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?
The Opposition’s suggestion of getting 13-year olds to work later hours on a Sunday is simply not serious. What is serious is the review that we have conducted with Alan Milburn on how we can get more young people into employment. We recognise the challenge, and that is why it is an important priority for us. We inherited a situation in which nearly a million young people were not in employment, education or training. That increased by 250,000 before the general election, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Young people written off by a legacy of rising youth inactivity and declining apprenticeship jobs. That is why we are serious about this. I appreciate and welcome Alan Milburn’s review, which is detailing how we can improve the situation. He has looked at the challenges that we are facing and laid bare the scale of them. We have already taken action to help young people by bringing forward the biggest youth employment reforms to create 500,000 opportunities for young people through our £2.5 billion youth guarantee, and we will continue to do more.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry level and flexible jobs?
I am glad that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson welcomes parts of the legislation, but I wish she would not repeat lines from the Conservatives, who broke our economy and destroyed our labour market. That is why the Act is so important: it will fix problems, particularly the problem of people being in insecure work, which does not grow our economy and will not provide the stability that we need.
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning flexibility. The problem occurs when flexibility is one sided and workers bear all the financial risks. That is why, as part of our consultations, particularly on zero hours contracts, we want to get flexibility and security right, so that we can rebalance them. We are working closely with employers, including in the retail sector, to understand how best to get that balance right, so that it benefits workers and businesses, too.
Resilience is vital in all our supply chains. That is why we have launched the supply chain centre, which will help to strengthen that resilience. War, extreme environmental events and the deliberate or accidental closure of shipping routes can affect everything from agriculture to construction in the UK. We want to do everything we can to predict, assess, minimise and mitigate those risks.
We have already seen the vulnerability of our economy to global supply chain shocks from the impact of wars on food, fuel and fertiliser prices, but scientists now warn that we are likely to be heading into a super El Niño—a global heating event that will trigger extreme weather around the world, threatening fish stocks and agriculture, disrupting the Panama canal and bringing climate induced fires that destroy vital timber supplies. How are Ministers preparing for those risks?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise El Niño. We believe that it has already started, and we are conscious of the issues that may arise from it. We are closely monitoring it and trying to ensure that we have resilient policies in place in every single sector, including agriculture and fisheries.
I should underline that the launch of the supply chain centre is an important moment for us. For the first time, we will have a body that can anticipate future supply risks, identify the inputs the UK needs, build domestic resilience and foster resilience through global partnerships. Those are important ways of ensuring that the UK has strong supply chains.
I thank the Minister very much for his answer. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I am particularly concerned about the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between our ports—he has answered my questions on this on other occasions. Businesses continue to report increased costs, administrative burdens, disruption to supply chains and delays. As a result, businesses have stopped trading into Northern Ireland. Given the likely negative economic consequences of that, will the Minister consider further steps to reduce those burdens and ensure smooth trade into Northern Ireland?
We are doing that all the time, and that is why we bring the issue of resilient supply chains into consideration in all our international trading relationships. For instance, particularly important to Northern Ireland is our relationship with the European Union, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in mentioning the Windsor framework. I am keen to ensure that resilient supply chains are looked at in the relationship between the EU and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans Pacific partnership, because it is not just what happens on the continent of Europe that is important; it could be what happens in the Gulf or the situation in Ukraine, which had dramatic effects on supplies of fertiliser around the world. We take specific action to ensure that we guarantee those supply chains.
I call the shadow Minister.
Our most critical supply chains are those that are directly linked to our national security. From autonomous vehicles to blast protection, British small and medium sized enterprises are the vital link in the supply chain, ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities to face down our adversaries. The Government have said that the Defence Office for Small Business Growth has an important role to play in supporting the sector, so how is the Minister co ordinating with the office? If I am a defence SME, how will it help me?
What is really important is the work that the Department for Business and Trade does in knitting together all our different policies—for instance the trade strategy, which looks at these issues, the critical minerals strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy. All those need to mesh together. One of the key things we have done is to produce, for the first time, a growth driving inputs list that specifies the particular elements that are vital for SMEs’ growth into the future. That is precisely the kind of action that a Government need to take to guarantee economic growth for the future.
I am grateful for that very comprehensive answer to a very different question—less of an answer, more of an interpretive dance.
What’s wrong with interpretive dance?
I just want an answer! Defence SMEs have said that the delay of the defence investment plan caused great uncertainty and disruption to the sector. In addition, they are completely confused by this Government’s endless offices, initiatives and quangos. Will the Minister commit—if he is still in position in a few weeks’ time—to providing more certainty to such an important sector?
I know from my constituency and across south Wales how important it is to have a defence investment plan that delivers jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. One of my anxieties about the previous Government was that they refused to take action either to invest in our armed forces or to ensure that we were able to produce things in the UK, rather than relying, for instance, on steel to produce everything that our armed forces need. That is why we introduced our steel trade measures earlier this week.
And there is nothing wrong with interpretive dance, Mr Speaker. As you know, the creative industries are an important part of our economic future, with 5% growth under this Labour Government.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital sector for island economies. Whisky exports were worth over £5.4 billion in 2025, supporting jobs and supply chains across Scotland. We are supporting distillers through UK Export Finance, DBT’s export support, trade promotion and direct engagement with the industry to help businesses, including small distilleries, to grow, invest and reach new markets.
Distilleries in my constituency—I count nine of them—overwhelmingly rely on kerosene heating oil to make their product. Since President Trump’s folly in Iran, they have seen costs rise by 18%. It is not just the distilleries; seaweed manufacturing, chemical processing at Callanish and the iconic Harris tweed industry all rely on kerosene heating oil to make their products. Domestic consumers in the islands are helped by generous support from the Government, but can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to help these energy reliant industries that keep hundreds of jobs in Na h Eileanan an Iar keep on going?
My hon. Friend knows that at this time of year, my heart is in Uist, and I wish I was there now sampling a gin cocktail from the Downpour distillery—my favourite of the nine distilleries he mentioned. We are determined to support energy intensive industries such as his local distillers. The supercharger for British industry is being reviewed this year, and we are keen to hear from the whisky industry as we review that support. As he says, many distilleries are off grid and heavily reliant on heating fuels, and are suffering from the Iran war. That is why we are considering the temporary suspension of tariffs on kerosene oil. The consultation on that ended a few days ago, and we will make a decision on it in due course.
Earlier this year in my constituency, the much loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?
I absolutely wish the hon. Member’s constituents all the best. It is entrepreneurial spirit like that that drives the economy forward. I will give one example of the support: there is a big extension of UK export finance so that such businesses can find new markets, because the best way to become a more resilient business is for them to open up and diversify their markets. I will gladly put his constituents in touch with people at UK Export Finance to discuss that.
Strong delivery of the 10-year modern industrial strategy is ongoing, including the investment in the British industrial competitiveness scheme—the long term industrial intervention to address energy costs. We also have the advanced manufacturing sector plan, which includes sector specific cross cutting measures to support manufacturers right across the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State will know very well that Glasgow South West is home to a storied, nationally significant collection of advanced manufacturing, from Type 26 frigate construction at BAE Systems, to small satellites at Craft Prospect, to the maritime supply chain at the Malin Group. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with businesses in Glasgow and Glasgow South West specifically about how we can grow this advanced manufacturing base, so that Glasgow can play its full part in Britain’s reindustrialisation?
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the extraordinary achievements of our country that have stemmed from his constituency. As he knows, on the Clyde they have adapted from manufacturing the Dreadnought through to the frigates that he mentioned. We are in another era of change, and the Government are on their side in this latest transformation. They will have access to a range of sector focused interventions from the industrial plan, as well as support for access to finance, innovation and tech adaptation. He will also be aware that the Glasgow city region will receive £50 million through the local innovation partnerships fund—a fund that I launched when I was in my previous job at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am pleased to see it being put to good use in his constituency.
The largest employer in Woking is McLaren. It sells around half of its cars to the US, which, needless to say, has not been easy since Donald Trump took office. What are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to work with the US to lower trade barriers, so that we can continue to have high quality advanced manufacturing jobs in Woking?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for championing what is an extraordinary company. I met the chief executive of McLaren just in the last week, and I will be meeting him again in the next couple of weeks. This is a Government who are on its side—of course, we got tariffs reduced to 10% for 100,000 cars. I have spoken to my counterpart in the United States, the Commerce Secretary, numerous times about the fantastic cars produced in our country, both the high volume mainstream products and these high value precision products that do our country proud. I can tell the hon. Member that the deal we have struck with America does those businesses proud too.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
This week, our hard pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?
I am very grateful for the hon. Member’s question because he raises important points. First, we are a listening Government, which is why we have acted to tackle the energy costs faced by the automotive sector—of course, we inherited those energy costs from the Tory Government. The BICS will lower the cost of producing cars in this country.
The hon. Member mentioned the ZEV mandate. I am listening very closely to him on that. In general terms, when it comes to environmental regulations across the piece, it is really important that we deliver net zero targets and get to that destination. We need to be creative in how we get to that destination, and I speak in general terms. He spoke to the automotive sector earlier this week, as I did. I was very honest about these issues. He should have been honest, too: his party brought in the rules in the first place—he should have apologised for them if he does not like them.
We are taking two steps to try to drive up our trade with Europe. First, we are seeking bilateral wins with individual countries like the small modular reactors deal that has just been done by Rolls Royce in Sweden, or opening up the pilot digital trade corridors that we have with Germany and France. We are also seeking to renegotiate a reset with the European Union as a whole. In the words of the Sugababes, we stand ready to “Push the Button”.
The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%. All of this shows what a shockingly appalling, shameful, despicable deal was done by the previous Government with the European Union. It was bad enough leaving, but the terms on which they left were absolutely appalling for British businesses. We are determined to turn that around, and we will.
Ten years on, Brexit continues to have a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses to the tune of almost £4 billion in lost revenue per year. Forty per cent of businesses say that Brexit is the main cause of trade difficulties. One of the worst hit sectors is farming, and lots of farmers in my constituency have written to me—even in the last two weeks since I was sworn in—to tell me that Brexit continues to put up barriers to business and trade, including through labour shortages, trade friction and long term uncertainty over subsidies. At a time when food insecurity and the cost of living cannot be disentangled from the experience of farmers, what is the Minister doing to support farmers in my constituency to produce the food that we need at this crucial time?
I want to recruit the hon. Lady to my campaign to make sure we end up with a better deal with the European Union, so that UK farmers can export easily and readily into the European Union and we can get goods from across the rest of Europe into the UK easily. So many sectors are affected. I sat down yesterday with Tracy Emin, one of the world’s greatest artists, who explained to me the problems since Brexit in bringing artworks in and out of the European Union from the UK. Resolving those problems is an important part of ensuring that we remain the second biggest art market in the world—again, part of the creative industries, which we should be supporting.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Joining the single market and a customs union could boost UK GDP by about £25 billion a year. Single market membership would give the UK access to EU defence programmes, creating high skilled jobs in aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence technology. It would restore passporting rights for financial services, reducing costs and administration for firms operating across Europe. For businesses, joining a customs union would eliminate the rules of origin red tape that adds between 2% and 8% to the cost of exporting.
The current Prime Minister and Chancellor have both admitted that repairing the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever they could pull for growth, and the incoming Prime Minister has stated his desire to rejoin the EU, so does the Minister agree that there is political momentum and a desperate economic need now to negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with Europe?
I do agree on the broad principles, but the Lib Dems were part of the coalition Government who created the momentum toward the Brexit referendum in the first place, so I am not going to sign up to any Liberal Democrat campaign. We are going to make sure that we reset the relationship with the European Union.
The Department has not provided guidance on that matter. Fees relating to the accreditation and monitoring of alternative dispute resolution providers have not risen since 2015, and have been significantly eroded by the impact of rising costs. The intention behind the new fee structure is to ensure that, over time, fees are commensurate with the costs of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute performing the relevant functions to the required standards, that they are predictable for ADR providers, and that they provide costs recovery for the CTSI.
I thank the Minister for that response. Caroline from Lindfield owns a small business that provides arbitration services. Since the introduction of the one size fits all fees set down earlier this year, her business model and that of so many other small ADR providers has become nigh on impossible to sustain. Has the Minister considered the impact on the sector from the fee changes? Can she explain why no impact assessment has been done? In particular, has she received feedback from trading standards since the legislation came into force?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. A well functioning ADR system makes markets work more effectively and drives economic growth. We are committed to ensuring that consumers and businesses are able to resolve disputes early, which helps to raise consumer confidence and compliance rates. We acknowledge that there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in, and in the autumn we will conduct a review to assess whether the fee structure should be amended further. We recognise the importance of ensuring that charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers and the CTSI as the competent authority.
We are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years in tackling the issues around youth unemployment. That will include new initiatives, such as a further 19 technical excellence colleges to provide high quality training for jobs in key sectors.
I recently met people from Mission Employable, an incredible charity based in Chorleywood, which offers supported internships for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was deeply concerning to hear that in England only 6% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid work. Will the Secretary of State outline how he is working with other Departments to ensure that the youth jobs grant does not disincentive employers in hiring people from supported internship backgrounds who are not claiming universal credit?
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. It sounds as if the charity that he references is doing incredibly important work locally. We want to support that work. It is a shame that in the years running up to coming into office, apprenticeship starts had fallen by 40%. We are reinvesting in apprenticeship starts and ensuring that they are available to everyone, from every background and with every ability.
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
Give us the opening line!
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
I am glad to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s childhood experiences. In retirement, perhaps we will see him in the musical “Mama Mia!”. My first job was on a battery chicken farm collecting eggs, so I hope that I can take a different path when I move away from the current profession. I assure him that not only are we are investing £2.5 billion but we are working across Departments to ensure that 400,000 students in disadvantaged schools will take up AI and tech skills through the tech first programme. These are the kinds of initiatives that we are wrapping around young people so that they get support for the age in which we are living. Extending the hours for 13-year olds is not a serious solution to the challenges we face, but that is the only answer that we have heard from Members on the Conservative Benches in recent times.
Small and medium sized enterprises are often best placed to kick start a young person’s career, but when I met a group of small business owners at the Crown pub in Granborough, many told me that the up front costs of training and supervision often act as a barrier to taking on young people. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what support the Government are providing to incentivise small and microbusinesses in helping to give opportunities to young people?
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have created a specific fund to support SMEs and young people to start up businesses. It is incredibly important that people from all backgrounds get to explore their entrepreneurial talents, and that is exactly what this Government are doing to make that happen.
We are investing £720 million in the greater Lincolnshire investment fund over the next 30 years as part of our devolved funding and support for areas just like my hon. Friend’s.
News of apprenticeship incentives, the youth jobs grant and the jobs guarantee will provide a welcome boost for my brilliant young people in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but they and other jobseekers will want to know what permanent jobs they can move into. We have huge opportunities and experience in new clean energy and the supply chain. What action is the Secretary of State taking to expand existing businesses and attract new investment in this sector to deliver jobs for my hard working constituents?
My hon. Friend is right that her constituents are hard working and they deserve to have a Government on their side: in this Government, they have that. We have invested £140 million in a pilot with the mayoral strategic authorities that will benefit her area. That will connect 16 to 24-year olds who are not in education, employment or training to local apprenticeship opportunities in her area. We are also investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy over the next three years. NEETs rose by 250,000 under the Tories and we are doing everything we can to get that down, including in her area by providing specialist advice via the Business Lincolnshire growth hub.
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for young adult carers. I have been honoured to visit Carers Count Calderdale in my own constituency of Halifax, and I know about the important and vital support that incredible unpaid carers across the country are providing to their loved ones. We are reviewing the employment rights available to them, including through a public consultation that launched last month and which is currently open for views. We are considering the merits of additional support, including paid leave, improved guidance and a right to return, while remaining mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to unpaid carers. I speak to unpaid carers across my constituency all the time, and I personally thank them for all that they do in caring for loved ones and in the wider community. However, so many unpaid carers I speak to tell me that they struggle to hold down a job, and many of them have had to give up really important careers. I absolutely welcome the Government’s commitment to a review, which has the potential to be absolutely transformative, but does the Minister agree that we must continue to support unpaid carers in Harlow and beyond?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to their loved ones and their communities, and the experiences of families in his constituency reflect the challenges faced by unpaid carers across the country. We want to ensure that carers can remain in work and fulfil their potential. Through our review, we will ensure that we are backing our unpaid carers to balance work and care, as well as the employers who support them in the workplace.
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member’s contribution in the recent Westminster Hall debate on seasonal hospitality businesses, including those in his constituency. We are delivering permanently lower business rate multipliers for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is backed by a £4.3 billion support package over three years, which includes transitional relief to protect businesses from large bill increases following the re evaluation. We have increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million over three years, building on the previous scheme, to support larger, longer term projects. I am committed to working in partnership with industry and across Government to support growth and resilience, including through targeted support measures and engagement, such as with the Hospitality Sector Council.
As welcome as that is, and I am not crying wolf, the hospitality sector faces a very high risk of substantial business failure in the next 12 months as a result of the tax burdens that it has to face simply for attempting to survive, rather than a tax burden to help it succeed—in other words, shifting from VAT and business rates to corporation tax. Will the Minister look again at this issue before real catastrophe comes to the sector? Will she talk to Treasury Ministers and find a way out of this extremely serious situation?
Unfortunately, we inherited an absolutely dire situation from the Conservatives when they left office. They left deep scars on our economy from a decade of stagnant growth. We know that hospitality thrives when our economy grows, wages rise and people have money to spend, which is why we are absolutely committed to supporting businesses and working closely with them. The hon. Member will know that the Government need to consider a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, such as whether they support wider Government objectives. He will also know that the Government keep all taxes under review as part of the policymaking process, and the Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.
The Northampton based McManus Pub Company runs 18 pubs and employs 370 people. I spoke to Tom McManus yesterday, who told me that successive Governments have ignored hospitality and that in the past five years business costs have made it harder for him to turn a profit. Tom has asked me to lobby the Government to cut VAT to 10%. What message does the Minister have for family businesses such as Tom’s?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for raising the preferences of businesses in his constituency and for his continued engagement on this issue on behalf of his constituents. He will know of the recent announcements on the temporary great British summer savings scheme, which will reduce VAT from 20% to 5% on selected hospitality activities between June and September. He will also know that we keep all taxes under review. He should say to his constituents, and particularly to his businesses and pubs, that we are absolutely committed to working with the industry and the sector to support them to thrive. They are vital to our local communities, people and jobs, and I know that he knows that too.
Harry Kane’s heroics last night mean that many England fans are looking forward to an early morning or a late night on Monday, depending on one’s perspective. That is a good thing, but pubs risk missing out on a real opportunity to get more money into the till if Ministers do not make a blanket extension to licensing hours. Will Ministers consider that with their colleagues in other Departments so that fans can enjoy the game in the pub?
I pay tribute in this House to the incredible Harry Kane, our captain, for his performance last night—he calmed my blood pressure—and we will be championing the boys on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman will know that pubs can stay open for an extra two or three hours depending on how late the match starts, so that they can still be open when the game finishes. Unfortunately that does not apply to Sunday, given the 1 am start, but going forward we are backing our pubs so that people can watch and support our lads. It’s coming home, hopefully.
Titanic Brewery, based in Stoke on Trent, makes a fabulous pint—I highly recommend the plum porter. However, the Minister will know that as an independent brewery, access to market is quite difficult because of the way that tied pubs insist that landlords buy their products. Could the Minister make an announcement before the summer recess on the access to market scheme, and in particular the guest beer arrangement that would allow 1,500 SMEs access to market? It would not cost the Government anything, and the Minister could find that lots of people raise a pint to her over the summer.
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement—I know how important the issue of market access for our breweries is to him. I was delighted to meet him and colleagues across this House recently, and I look forward to continuing to engage and work with them as the Government consider the evidence ahead of any announcements.
The hospitality sector remains a major UK employer. It supported around 2.1 million jobs last year, or around 6% of total employment. Employment has grown by over 18% in the past decade, and although growth has stabilised more recently, that follows a period of strong expansion, reflecting the sector’s continued importance to local economies and youth employment. I know myself how vital the sector is for first jobs—my first job was in a café, and that opportunity gave me the skills to go on and succeed in my career. We are supporting jobs through skills investment, including new hospitality apprenticeships, incentives for SMEs to recruit young people, and sector based work academy programmes to help people into work.
I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the vital role that the hospitality sector plays in providing those first jobs and opportunities for people. I work closely with hospitality businesses, and I am really keen to continue to listen to them, to understand the challenges they face. I know that the right hon. Member will welcome our youth jobs grant, which was launched this week and is open for applications—that was welcomed by the chief executive of UKHospitality. We want to keep working with those businesses, and I thank them for their engagement so far on how we can continue to support them to crack on with the brilliant opportunities they provide in communities across the country.
When it comes to international deals, we regularly fight determinedly for the farming sector and the wider food and beverage sector. Sometimes that means defending our UK farming and food standards, but just as often, we are able to secure significant advances; for instance, we have managed to secure increased access for British beef in the United States of America, for lamb and salmon in India, and for lamb and beef in the Gulf. We will always fight for the British farming sector.
The effects on farmers and food standards are some of the most visible and felt impacts of trade policy, and obviously domestic agriculture is one of our sectors that are most sensitive to import shocks. Does the Minister agree that transition periods are vital when the Government are negotiating international trade agreements? Will he commit to making sure that the farming sector is properly consulted on implementation and transition periods for any agreement that is made, and particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, and will he work across Government on that?
I commend my hon. Friend—since he has been in the House he has raised lots of issues on behalf of the farming sector in his constituency. Some of those are issues that need to come directly to Ministers, so that we can take action on them, and this is one of them. We are very keen to make sure that the SPS agreement is negotiated in a way that really works for farmers in the UK, but I would also apply that to any free trade agreement we were to sign up to. I am very keen to ensure we get good deals for British farmers, and as I say, we will always, always, always defend farming standards and food standards in the UK. Those are not negotiable in free trade agreements.
Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?
We have regular conversations and at every stage, we are trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal that works for UK farmers. I just say gently to the hon. Lady that I was a Member in this House, representing a Welsh seat with many Welsh farmers, when the previous Government struck the deal with Australia and New Zealand. Welsh farmers, both in my patch and elsewhere in Wales, were absolutely furious, because it did not seem to consider their needs for a single instant.
This Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which closes down the equivalent of 38 businesses every day. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May and had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 9 June. This legislation sets out stricter maximum payment terms, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to ensure that small businesses are paid on time. That will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
Small businesses are at the heart of Altrincham and Sale West, and when I meet them, often alongside the Altrincham district improvement board, they tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is late payments. Can the Minister explain further how this Government’s action on mandatory interest rates and to force large firms to pay up within 60 days is a win for my high street?
My hon. Friend always fights hard for small businesses in his patch. This Bill will ensure that purchasers pay suppliers within 60 days and that mandatory interest is paid on late invoices. For too long, large businesses have used small businesses as a source of free credit. That will end under these plans. That will mean better cash flow for businesses in his constituency, more jobs, more economic growth and better high streets.
The UK was the fastest growing G7 economy in quarter 1 of this year, and we know that we will only achieve a thriving economy once people have a wage they can count on. We want to grow our economy with people in secure work. That is why we are giving greater certainty to more than half the UK’s workforce through our Employment Rights Act 2025 and putting more money in their pockets. External analysis by world leading experts shows that the Act could increase employment, and our impact assessment shows that it will benefit more than 18 million workers across the country.
The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?
We are focused on fixing the issues in our labour market that the Conservatives neglected: poor working conditions, insecure work, inequality, the undercutting of good employers in brilliant SMEs, and the bad industrial relations that we inherited. Since July, real wages have grown. We have the third highest employment rate in the G7, and we are focused on backing our brilliant SMEs. They are the backbone of the community. I come from a small business family, and it provided me with that first job and opportunity. We want to get more people into work and to work with our SMEs, so that we can build that thriving economy where people have a wage so that they can get on.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say that one year ago we published our industrial strategy. Since publication, work driven by the industrial strategy has secured around £360 billion of private investment into the eight industrial strategy sectors and £33 billion worth of export announcements, supporting up to 120,000 jobs. We are backing winners and giving our sectors with the highest potential everything they need to succeed, and in year two we will go further. We will be cutting energy costs for 10,000-plus manufacturing firms, working with businesses to create jobs for those eight sectors—the IS-8—to secure the workforce of the future, and cutting regulatory burdens to unlock investment. In just under two weeks, on 15 July, our trade deal with India will enter into force. India has never implemented a deal of this size, which could boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion every year in the long run. That is just the start. We will continue to drive delivery to secure investment and good high paying jobs into year two and beyond.
Micklefield Hall in Sarratt is a great example of a small business that has survived covid, only to be repeatedly hit by this Labour Government. Its representatives have contacted me to say that they are keen to borrow money for long term investment, but fearful of yet more taxes on business. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to small businesses that want to invest for future growth, such as Micklefield Hall?
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman again in the same session—I suggest that he buy a lottery ticket tonight, because he is certainly having a lot of success in the draw. I can assure him that we are investing in small and medium sized enterprises, and we have funding targeted at helping young people to start their own businesses. He lists some of the perceived challenges in the economy at the minute. Do not forget that youth unemployment went up by 250,000 in the years leading up to the general election without all the things that the Conservatives keep mentioning we are doing, such as giving rights and delivering investment into the economy.
I pay tribute to the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he advocates for. Businesses around the country are paying the price of, and having to adapt to the challenges posed by, the Iran war. It is a good job that we have a Prime Minister who kept us out of the war—those on the Conservative Benches would have plunged us into it and made things even more difficult for businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. On his specific question, I can tell him that we are engaging regularly with refiners, importers and distributors to ensure that any emerging risks are identified and managed properly.
I call the shadow Minister.
There is a bit of an end of term feel in the House at the moment. I heard the Secretary of State set out his answer to his essay question, but I point out that UK business confidence is at a four year low, unemployment is up, millionaires are fleeing, and the Department’s own figures show inward investment falling by 26% this year to the lowest level in over a decade. I would say that is a failing mark. What does the Secretary of State plan to do differently when the new headteacher arrives?
I always look forward to the hon. Lady’s questions. The fundamentals of running our economy are going in the right direction. Growth is up, and inflation is down. These are things that the Conservatives never achieved when they were in government, but we have achieved them in two years. We have got more growth into our economy in the last two years than they achieved in multiple years leading up to the election.
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I did not hear a plan for improvement in that answer. I am afraid the mark is “must do better”.
Let us turn to another bit of the Secretary of State’s coursework in this failing end of term report. Will he agree today to compensate all the Horizon victims, and to get Fujitsu to pay towards it, by the end of the year?
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has met victims regularly. We are accelerating the compensation and the justice from what we inherited, because it was going too slow to deliver the justice that people required. When it comes to Horizon, we will deliver the justice and compensation that people require.
On the plan, our industrial strategy is crowding £360 billion of private investment into key sectors of our economy. We are lowering energy prices for manufacturers. Through plan after plan after plan, we are delivering the change that business is calling for and needs.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are working closely with various stakeholders to ensure that workers understand and claim their new rights under the Employment Rights Act. I know how vital trade unions are not just to organising, but to educating workers on their rights at work. I am so proud that they have been instrumental to development and implementation of these rights, and we look forward to continuing to working with them closely.
In Aberdeen South, there is a jobs emergency, with 1,000 jobs a month being lost from the oil and gas sector. So will the Government ditch their damaging policies that are destroying the oil and gas industry and destroying jobs in Aberdeen South?
This Government are investing record amounts in the transition to renewable energy. We need to break the dependence on fossil fuels that our country has been forced into by the Conservative party. We will do so by creating wealth, jobs and businesses in the meantime.
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s really important question. As I have said throughout this session, we are investing in young people and people in work, so they can adapt to the changes happening in the economy because of the transition to digital technology, particularly with AI. We are providing flexible support through bursaries for younger learners and learner support funding for adults. Do not forget the work that Business and Trade Ministers are doing jointly with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that people in the workplace are trained and have all the skills they need to thrive in the digital age.
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?
Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.
I can provide all the reassurances my hon. Friend seeks. We are of course investing in the new technical colleges, as I have outlined. We are investing in young people so that they have the skills to transition from education into the workplace. We know that young people face challenges in this era because of not only the legacy of the last Government but the transition towards an AI future, which is disrupting the workforce. We are focused on training people, and we are working very closely with Alan Milburn, who brought consensus to the diagnosis of the challenges facing young people, and I hope will now bring consensus across the House to how we grab this issue once and for all.
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.
I am already working with DSIT on these issues, but because of my hon. Friend’s informed question and the imploration for me to do more I will double down on that. He is giving real voice to an incredibly important part of the defence technology sector which we need to foster. The defence investment plan invests much more in drone technology. We will be investing more than £5 billion in drones over the next four years, and that his constituency will be playing a very key role in that.
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub postmasters to take over the businesses.
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed question. I, too, celebrate this important appointment and the Office for Investment is doing great work. The criteria for success that I see are how Britain can get more scale up investment into companies, so they do not have to go elsewhere around the world to find the capital they need to grow, and how more people can start, build and scale right here in the UK. I often ask myself why the continent of Europe does not have a single trillion dollar company. The Office for Investment, working with the Government, can start to answer that question.
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue. If my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting with me and officials, we can make sure that that happens.
Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having conversations with DEFRA over these issues. We want to ensure that regulation is right. We need to incentivise the right behaviour and the circular economy, but we need to do so in a responsible way. We are always engaged with the sectors that are impacted, not just because of regulatory measures but because of external measures facing our economy.
The Government’s critical minerals strategy was a fantastic achievement, with clear targets, and it will kick start a nascent industry. To take the next step to get the sector up on its feet and to a more competitive place, will the Minister support a Government price certainty mechanism for lithium?
That is one of the issues that we need to look at not just in the UK but with our international allies. We have got ourselves in a ludicrous position where critical minerals are available all over the world, but 85% of them are only processed in one country. We need to ensure that we have resilience in this area, and it is precisely the kind of issue that we need to look at to protect jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?
I certainly join the hon. Member in celebrating the success of that business—and businesses across the country that are doing such great work for the people who work in them and our overall economy. I would like to hear more about the business, and if I get the opportunity, visiting would be a pleasure.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
I know the Secretary of State will join me in wishing the United States a very happy 250th birthday on Saturday. It was John Pym and Members of this House four centuries ago who helped found the American economy, and I know the whole House will wish the young republic well. But it is the Republic of France that I want to ask the Secretary of State about.
Today, I am publishing correspondence between the Committee and the Port of Dover, warning that we will have, without doubt, a critical incident at the border unless France is persuaded to suspend the entry and exit system. The modelling has been done, and we know the chaos that will follow, so what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that we avoid this peril?
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s advocacy, and I share in his birthday message to the people of the United States of America. The Department for Transport is engaged with the Port of Dover, and thanks to the functional and productive relations we have with the EU, we are working with it on those issues to ensure that the worst case scenario my right hon. Friend outlines does not come to pass,
The Secretary of State is aware of the importance of Cheltenham’s cyber security industry, which is a key part of this nation’s defence efforts. I have good news for him: we are about to break ground on the Golden Valley development, bringing 12,000 jobs in cyber and tech to my town, as well as much needed new homes. Would the Secretary of State and his colleagues like to come and visit this success story in due course, not for the ground breaking next week, but in the future? It will be popular with the incoming Prime Minister.
The hon. Member’s enthusiasm is infectious. He came to meet me when I was Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Golden Valley, and we spoke about our shared ambition in that area for the clustering of expertise that having GCHQ and others brings to the community he represents. I share in the hon. Member’s celebration and hope that I get to visit at some point soon.
The owner of Palace Cycles recently told me that while explaining to a customer that he would not service the illegally modified e bike that had been brought into his shop, the bike shot across the shop of its own accord. When will the Government regulate to ban the sale of dodgy, illegal, unsafe e bikes and the kits that create them?
I thank my hon. Friend for her constant campaigning on this issue. I know how important it is and, I value working closely with her. Businesses producing or supplying those products must ensure that they are safe before they are placed on the market, including online marketplaces. Businesses should not supply products they know—or should know—are unsafe. My hon. Friend knows that taking action includes regulatory action. We work alongside other Departments on this, and our recent consultation looked at how we can go even further to ensure that products are safe.
Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The business for the week commencing 6 July will include: Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (second allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes: Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end.
The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices.
Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn.
Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members.
Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.
Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same.
We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?
Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning.
Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends.
I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House.
This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers.
Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed.
Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.
Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade.
We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.
With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.
Order. We need to end this session by around 11.45 am, so let’s help each other. I call Siobhain McDonagh to set a good example.
St Helier hospital has the fourth best maternity unit in the country, the only exclusively NHS run assisted conception unit in south west London, and a specialist gynaecology ward where nurses are highly trained in counselling. Yet all that is set to close next May because of the need for emergency repairs. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on those vital services, and whether they be temporarily relocated somewhere else on the St Helier site and returned to the current building on completion of the repairs?
My hon. Friend is a strong defender of the interests of her constituents, and I listen very carefully to her concerns. The Government are committed to improving maternity across the country. That is why we have set up a national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we are very keen to get on with it. If she wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, she could hear directly from a Minister about how her specific constituency concerns might be addressed, and if she wishes to seek a meeting with Ministers to make her case, I will help her to arrange one.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I join the whole House in congratulating the England team, in particular Tottenham Hotspur academy product Harry Kane for his heroics last night. I am also grateful to the Conservatives for their lecture on sanctimony, though I note that self awareness was never their strongest trait.
This week my community was rocked by the news that Coughlan’s Bakery—a family run business that been operating in the local area for 89 years—will close its doors for the last time. In their announcement, they say: “This was so devastating as March was a fantastic month, as was a lot of last year with our growth with new stores opening, but as soon as April’s new Government rules kicked in on national insurance, wages and rates, it instantly hit the high street”. That shows that Government policy is directly killing long term, family run businesses.
We warned the Government about this, and when we did we were told that they could not fund public services without the rises in business taxes, but let me make it clear to them: the Government will no longer receive any tax income from this local business anymore, and I fear that the revenue loss will continue to grow over the course of this year. Will the Government organise a statement from the relevant Department explaining what they are going to do about small businesses in distress, outlining how many are at risk and how many have already closed since April?
I am concerned to hear of a business closing, particularly one that has been around for such a long time and which has served a community. I am genuinely sorry to hear that.
Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities and economies, and the Government are committed to supporting them in every way that we can, which is why our small business plan will save businesses time and money, boost access to finance and create new opportunities—but I do understand that for some businesses, there is an alternative scenario. We are also supporting a large number of businesses through a £4.3 billion business rates package.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national insurance, but the change was made so that we could invest in our public services. He cannot have it both ways; Liberal Democrats constantly talk about the need for more spending on all sorts of things, and yet, when it comes to a difficult decision about voting for the money, they vote the wrong way.
Shabir Ahmed was the ringleader of a disgusting Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of serial rapes against young white girls and repeated rapes of a young Asian girl. Today, Shabir Ahmed is being released from prison with a restriction that he should not enter the Rochdale or Oldham boroughs—yet Shabir Ahmed is joint UK Pakistani national, and he should be deported to Pakistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Home Office and the Foreign Office should do everything possible within their power to make sure that people like Ahmed are deported and that their victims never ever have to face them again?
In short: yes, I do. Our thoughts should be with the victims of these appalling crimes. The perpetrators in grooming gangs and sexual abuse cases must face the full force of the law, whoever they are and wherever they come from—let me be absolutely clear about that. If the individual we are talking about breaches the very strict conditions that have been placed upon him, he will be locked up again immediately—I hope he pays heed to that—but I also know that the Government are exploring every option in this case.
I call the acting Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
The Chairman of the Committee sends his apologies, Mr Speaker. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the Committee has agreed two Select Committee statements: one next Thursday from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and one the following Thursday from the Work and Pensions Committee. In addition, in Westminster Hall next week, there will be debates on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends and on the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people. On Thursday, there will be a debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. The following week, there will be debates on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities, on the impact of the national planning policy framework changes and on capital funding for Changing Places.
I urge Members to take part in the Sir David Amess debate, which the Leader of the House mentioned. It is an opportunity to raise any constituency matters and perhaps to avoid having to come to the Backbench Business Committee, where we have to find more time for those debates. In addition, will the Leader of the House give the Committee early notice of debating time in September, particularly if it is on the first day back?
Moving on to my own question, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of the long running campaign by the National Association of Retired Police Officers in respect of the injustice to widows and widowers, who can be deprived of their pension if they remarry. I have raised the matter in the House previously. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to come here and outline the Government’s plans? I know that would please many of my constituents and others across the country.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on what the Committee is planning, and I thank the Committee for its work. We were able to provide more time in response to the Chairman’s request last time, and it is good to see that coastal communities are getting a hearing. I am pleased to confirm, as I did in my statement, that the Sir David Amess debate is taking place, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words that it is a good opportunity for colleagues to raise any concern. I will give early notice, where I can, of plans for when we return in September.
The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous campaigner on police pensions. The 1987 police pension scheme is now closed and has been superseded by the 2015 scheme, and there are no plans for further improvements to the benefits accrued under it. However, I will make sure that Ministers have heard his concerns; should he wish to raise them with Ministers personally, I will help him to arrange a meeting.
I declare a non pecuniary interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. The Leader of the House and many Members will know that since the payment of civil service pensions was outsourced, there has been near chaos; many civil servants have been unable to retire because they have not received information about their pensions, and retired civil servants have not even been receiving their pension. A written ministerial statement yesterday said that there will be an update to Parliament shortly, and that, with regard to Capita, “the Government will not hesitate to take firm action for continued underperformance.”
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office that the update should include a commitment to returning the administration of civil service pensions to public control—and that means insourcing?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his campaigning on this matter, which has been raised often with me in this Session. I had hoped that there would be an update to the House; I still have that hope, and I hope that it happens very soon indeed. What the Minister will say is, of course, a matter for the Minister, and I do not want to pre empt that, but we should expect that update, during which my right hon. Friend and others can raise concerns directly with the Minister.
May we have a statement from a Work and Pensions Minister on the lack of routes through which right hon. and hon. Members can contact the Department on behalf of constituents who, as in the case of one chronically ill lady whom I represent, have lost universal credit and wish to challenge that? She has been struggling for more than a year, whereas we have been struggling only for the last six months, to get an answer out of the Department. When the Leader of the House sends on that request, as he always assiduously does, may I include a summary sheet about this case for him to include with his letter to the Minister?
The right hon. Gentleman may indeed include that, and I will take this up with the Minister, because I know that his frustrations are shared by many Members of the House. If he lets me have that information, I will get on with it.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Serhat Erdogan and his team on the successful opening of Cafe Victoria? He has taken on a long empty shop in Grimsby town centre, which shows great confidence in the local economy of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The Government launched community auctions for empty shops; will the Leader of the House help me to get a Government statement on progress on community auctions?
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved with the opening of Cafe Victoria. I know the trials and tribulations of coastal communities, and the important role that cafés and hospitality play. If she wants to make the case directly to a Minister and get that update, I will help her to achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the Prime Minister in waiting—has said that his approach to devolution would be one of urgency, yet we understand that there may be conversations about delaying announcements on local government reorganisation and devolution of powers, so that the new Prime Minister has the glamour of announcing them. Will the Leader of the House put those rumours to bed, and confirm that announcements on the creation of unitary authorities in Hertfordshire and elsewhere will be made in this House, before the summer recess? That way, Members can ask the Government questions, and local authorities can have certainty about going ahead with local government reorganisation without further disruption to vital services, such as special educational needs and disabilities provision and social care.
Let me think about what the hon. Lady has said and find out from the relevant Department what its plans are. On what might happen in the future, let me reassure her and the House that there will be continuity of government. Of course, if there is a new incoming Administration, it is not unreasonable for them to look at plans, but they will be absolutely aware of the need for local areas and local government to plan for the future. Let me think about the first bit. I reassure her that whatever happens in the future, I would expect the next Administration to want to get on with it.
Many of us remain frustrated by delays to Royal Mail postal deliveries. My constituent Anthony Barnes was removed from a treatment waiting list on three occasions because hospital communications did not arrive in time. I have encouraged local healthcare providers to use Royal Mail’s NHS specific barcode, which prioritises delivery for health board correspondence. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a ministerial update on Royal Mail’s performance, including uptake of the NHS specific barcode? That will be important to many of our constituents across the UK.
The consequences that Anthony faced due to Royal Mail delivery issues are simply unacceptable. My hon. Friend is right that this affects constituents right across the country. I am pleased to say that the Business and Trade Committee continues to look at Royal Mail’s performance, but I will raise this matter with the Department on my hon. Friend’s behalf.
Back in 2022, the Keighley Cougars were awarded over £2 million to replace the Danny Jones stand, which is in dire need of repair, but Bradford council has still not made a decision on releasing this money, despite it having been awarded to the team. Can we have a debate in this place about how we unlock this money, which had been allocated through the Keighley towns fund, so that we can get these projects underway for the benefit of my residents in Keighley?
Let me wish the Keighley Cougars well in their endeavours. Also, I hope that Bradford council has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, that it can get on, and that he gets the positive response that he seeks. If that is not forthcoming, perhaps he would seek an Adjournment debate on the issue, in order to hear directly from the Minister, who I am sure will confirm the importance that this Government give to local sport.
Rick Rescorla, a son of Hayle in my constituency, was a security guard in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and is widely credited with saving 2,700 lives while sacrificing his own. Decorated in his career in both the British and US armies, Rick was truly a national hero. Ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the heroes of 9/11, and also help me secure British and US army representation at a ceremony in Hayle on 9/11?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the House. He is absolutely right to highlight the bravery shown that day by Rick Rescorla. It is an absolutely remarkable story from a very dark day indeed. As we approach the anniversary, I hope that my hon. Friend might consider applying for an Adjournment debate on this subject, to start the build up to what will be a prolonged and important commemoration of those dreadful events. As for his point about ensuring that servicemen or women are at the ceremony, I hope that the Ministry of Defence has heard it. If not, I will point it out to the Department.
On Tuesday, we learned that the only two major road projects in the east midlands—the A46 in Newark and the A38 in Derby—were to be scrapped. So many questions remain. How were these projects chosen? Why are the only projects being scrapped in the whole country those in the east midlands? Who, if anyone, was consulted? The Labour Mayor of the East Midlands was not. How much money has been wasted over the last 10 years getting to the point that we are at today? Does the Department for Transport even support this decision, given that the only communication we have had—by “we”, I mean the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), the Labour Mayor of the East Midlands and I—came, weirdly, from a special adviser in No. 10, not from the Secretary of State for Transport? It really is a mess. Can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to get in touch with those of us who are interested in this matter, and to come to Parliament to answer questions on it?
Yes, in short; I will ask the Secretary of State to ensure that MPs from the area, including the right hon. Gentleman, get the information that they seek. These are very tough decisions indeed. On the one hand, it is quite right that Opposition—and, indeed, Government—Members should call for greater expenditure on defence; that is why every Department has been asked to look at its spending commitments, including Transport. These are tough decisions, and I understand that they are frustrating and can have a big effect on local areas. I will seek a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman and local MPs, so that they can make their case to the relevant Minister.
The Leader of the House will know that I never miss an opportunity to raise the subject of the state of Staffordshire’s roads, but they may not have heard this variant before. Residents in Church Eaton have reported a sinkhole on their high street. I have seen it. Nobody seems able to get it filled in. It is on a main road, close to a primary school, and it has become something of a legend among local residents, to the extent that one constituent wrote a poem about it. Could the Leader of the House grant a debate on the condition of rural roads, so that we can get to the bottom of why repairs like this keep falling through the cracks?
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for her constituents on the issue of local roads, and I pay tribute to her for that. Her constituents are rightly angry about this issue, and I expect better—well, perhaps I do not, but we ought to—from a Reform county council. I hope the council has heard my hon. Friend this morning. We are doubling investment in local road maintenance, and providing a record £7.3 billion boost for councils over the next four years. My advice to the council is this: the money is there—get on and use it.
In Salisbury, we welcome zero emission buses, and the previous Conservative Administration worked with the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area—scheme to deliver 30 new buses. Last week, when I met Ed Wills, the new managing director of Salisbury Reds, we discussed a number of matters, including acoustic measures to mitigate the noise from those buses, but the challenge is that Chinese manufactured buses are cheaper, and offer greater battery range. The Government need to make a decision about the next round of the ZEBRA scheme. Could the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement on this, so that local authorities around the country, including those in Wiltshire, can determine the best way to expand provision?
Let me draw that to the attention of the relevant Minister. This Government set great store by buses and the environment, but we are encouraging councils and businesses to buy British wherever they can. I will raise that matter directly with the Minister, and we will see whether we can get the update that the right hon. Gentleman is looking for.
I have not yet had the opportunity to mention the knighting of Kevin Sinfield—a great human being, a brilliant sports player and, I suppose above all, a humanitarian. One of his distinguishing characteristics is his modesty, but modesty cannot be attributed to the new boss at Royal Mail, who is driving that company into the ground, in spite of the efforts of the posties. He has paid himself a £7 million salary in a single year. Can we have a debate about corporate failure and executive reimbursement? That would allow us to express our frustration about what is happening in the country.
Let me join my hon. Friend in once again paying tribute to Sir Kevin Sinfield on his well deserved honour. Royal Mail is the subject of an inquiry that will report back to the House; there will be an opportunity at that point to debate it. If we need further time for debate on the subject, I will give that matter consideration.
Cellnex estimates that Mid Sussex is ranked 499th out of 650 constituencies for quality of mobile signal strength. The current obligations on mobile operators are clearly failing to provide the coverage that my constituents deserve in villages like Cuckfield, Bolney and Fulking. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the merits of changing these mobile operator obligations, so that we can have the coverage that we so badly need?
That is a concern for the Government. We want to make sure that everyone has the services they need, and we are keen get that coverage rolled out. I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate, or perhaps a debate in Westminster Hall, to make her case, so that she can hear directly from the relevant Minister what more we can do.
The Government have shown a clear commitment to addressing many of the issues facing leaseholders, but may I ask them to go further? I say that because many of my constituents who are leaseholders in a particular building that is under 11 metres tall are facing a bill of £70,000—in fact, the managing agent is asking for £3,000 a month. This is not due to any fault on the part of the leaseholders. Will the Leader of the House ask the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make an oral or written statement on the support available to leaseholders in buildings that are under 11 metres tall?
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The Government are working hard to strengthen leaseholder protections through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and our forthcoming leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, but I shall certainly seek the update she requests. I remind the House that there is a Backbench Business debate later today on leasehold reform, in which my hon. Friend and other Members will be able to raise these issues and hear directly from the Minister for Housing and Planning.
The House will be delighted to learn that 17-year old Leo, whom I have mentioned previously in the Chamber, is now cancer free after being matched with a stem cell donor. This is excellent news. In addition, Leo is up for an award—the BBC Make a Difference young hero of the year. Will the whole House join me in wishing Leo the best of luck, and perhaps the Leader of the House will root for Leo to go on to win?
I certainly send my best wishes to Leo for a full recovery. I recall the hon. Gentleman raising Leo’s remarkable story, and I am delighted to hear the news. I also wish him all the very best in relation to the award. There are some remarkable young people, and I hope that Leo is recognised as one of them.
More than 70 organisations and novelist Irvine Welsh are backing the community led bid for Leith to become the first ever UK town of culture. Can my right hon. Friend put in a word for Leith with Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and will he make arrangements for a written statement to update us on the timetable of the UK town of culture 2028 competition?
I am sure Leith is a perfectly lovely town and a fine contender for town of culture; however, my hon. Friend invites me down a route I simply cannot take, because North Shields, a town in my constituency, has also put in a very strong bid—as has Chorley, Mr Speaker—and I do have to return to my constituency, so I have to be careful. None the less, I wish all the towns, including Leith, the very best in their attempts to be crowned the first town of culture. It is a great scheme and, win or lose, a great way to highlight the importance of our towns and the communities who live in them. I will ask the relevant Minister to update the House on the process as soon as possible.
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. On 23 December 2024, my constituent Aaron Jones was killed in a hit and run while walking his dog. The perpetrator was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Two weeks ago, his widow, Lisa, received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her of sentence changes under the Sentencing Act 2026, but she will have to wait until the end of August to know whether the man who took her husband’s life will be released earlier than expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that this uncertainty only brings further distress to victims’ families, and will he grant a debate in Government time so we can ensure that the Act is implemented with the required sensitivity, and with the safety and wellbeing of survivors the foremost consideration?
I understand the sensitivity of this matter and the distress that the death of Mr Jones and what has happened since must bring to his family. These are difficult decisions, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point about giving families reassurance as far as it can be given. I hope that the Ministry of Justice has heard her comments, and I will raise this case directly with Ministers.
If the hon. Lady seeks an Adjournment debate to hear a Minister explain how else this process can be strengthened, I think that would be appropriate, but let me be clear: this must be a part of every process, not just applied in individual cases. A cultural shift is needed in how we deal with these matters.
On 15 June, a vehicle crashed through the fence at Sunny Days nursery in Vale Road, Ellesmere Port, injuring a number of children. Thankfully, it does not look as if there has been any long term damage. The parents want to praise the staff at the nursery and the local residents and businesses who came to the children’s aid, but the incident has raised questions about security and safety standards at nurseries. I understand that the Department for Education is looking at the issue, but will a Minister make a statement about it?
My hon. Friend is right that the Department for Education takes the issue very seriously indeed and is looking at these matters. When it has reached its conclusions, I am sure that the relevant Minister will want to bring them to the House. I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend has done, not just to the staff at the nursery but to the whole community, who sound as though they rallied together after this unfortunate and terrible situation. Let us hope that what comes forward makes it much less likely that something like this will happen again.
In 2023, I secured funds from the last Government to conserve and bring home our 10-foot sea dragon to Rutland. Unfortunately, Rutland county council has now overrun on another project and has decided not bring the ichthyosaur back to Rutland, which will cost our local economy in terms of future prosperity. The local conservator has said that he will reduce the cost of conserving this specimen of national importance, but the council has said that it cannot accept a reduced cost or retender for the work because of national Government rules. Does that not seem preposterous? It flies in the face of the idea of best value for taxpayer money.
It does sound slightly odd, and I share the hon. Lady’s concern. If she provides me with the details, I will take them away and get the Department to look at them to see how the council has interpreted the rules and whether this is the reality, but I hope that the council has heard her remarks.
I declare an interest as the chair of the all party parliamentary group on anti corruption and responsible tax. This week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) declared that he is earning an extraordinary £22,500 per hour working for a gold bullion dealer.
Order. Have you informed the hon. Member for Clacton that you intended to raise this matter?
indicated assent.
Good. Carry on.
Questions have also emerged about his lobbying the Bank of England for crypto friendly policies, having himself invested £215,000 into bitcoin company Stack BTC, alongside former Conservative Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Does the Leader of the House agree that Members of this House are public servants and that we should always put our constituents first, before any private interest? Will he use his good offices as Chair of the Modernisation Committee to deliver much needed reform to the rules on Members’ outside employment?
Yes. I share my hon. Friend’s view about the importance of the primary job of MPs. There was a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall yesterday. This matter was raised on a number of occasions and the Minister without Portfolio set out the current Government’s response. The Government believe that an MP’s primary job is to represent their constituents, which is why we have already made some important changes following the general election to tighten the rules relating to MPs’ second jobs. We accept that there is a great deal more to do and I will continue to work closely with the Committee on Standards, which is looking at this matter and I hope will bring forward recommendations that satisfy my hon. Friend.
I declare an interest as chair of the all party parliamentary group for dairy. I welcome the fact that the Government’s farming road map explicitly designates food production as an issue of national security, but I am deeply concerned that their water White Paper proposes a blanket extension of environmental permitting, from poultry and pig farms to the dairy sector, despite animals in the former being kept mostly indoors and cattle mostly outdoors. My North Cornwall constituents and National Farmers’ Union delegates estimate that this could cost around £10,000 per farm and produce much more paperwork. Can we please have a debate in Government time on the need to support farmers to produce food for this country, rather than deterring our farmers from actually farming?
The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s view that it is important that we support farmers, and agree with him about the importance of food security and food production as we go forward. As he alluded to, we need to ensure that what is happening in certain areas of farming and the Government’s plans on water are joined up, because we need to get this right. In order to get an answer from the relevant Minister, I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that he can hear from them directly.
Vernon Building Society, which was established in 1924, offers financial services to people in Stockport and across Greater Manchester. It is a true mutual, owned by members, not shareholders. However, as the building society sector grows, there are concerns about meaningful democratic engagement for members. In particular, in Nationwide, which is the largest building society in the world, concerns have been raised about a virtual only annual general meeting, a lack of member nominated directors and the quick vote mechanism. When members are owners, they must have a meaningful voice in how the organisation is run and governed. As such, may I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the Building Societies Act 1986 and the need for a meaningful democratic voice for the membership?
My hon. Friend raises some interesting concerns, particularly around transparency, and he rightly points out that building societies are a vital and growing part of our economy. I suggest that he should seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate so that he can hear directly from a Minister how his concerns might be addressed.
EnQuest has just announced that jobs will be lost at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, in the latest blow to the oil and gas sector. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a full debate on the future of the oil and gas sector before it is too late?
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I know that the oil and gas sector was a very big issue in the by election, and the Government take this matter very seriously indeed.
I very much regret the loss of jobs that the hon. Gentleman has talked about, but I gently remind him that it is not a new phenomenon; some 70,000 jobs have been lost in the last decade. However, oil and gas come out of the North sea 24 hours a day, every day, and they will continue to do so. We have a mixed economy, but we must ensure that green jobs are coming through as well, because the sector needs to change.
I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of a debate specifically on this matter at the moment, but the Government are very cognisant of it. Should we or the Backbench Business Committee get the opportunity to have that debate, I am sure it would be very well attended.
Increasing numbers of people experiencing homelessness are being forced to choose between accessing accommodation and keeping the pets that provide them with companionship, emotional support, stability and a sense of safety. Street Paws is a leading campaigner to remove this preventable barrier. Pet inclusive approaches have been introduced successfully in a number of areas, including Greater Manchester, demonstrating that such policies can be implemented safely and effectively. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the need to expand that support and ensure that no one is denied accommodation simply because they refuse to abandon a beloved pet?
My hon. Friend raises a very important point indeed, which I know is a concern to many of our constituents. The homelessness code of guidance sets out the framework that local authorities must follow in carrying out their homelessness duties. It is not always possible, but the Secretary of State recommends that authorities give careful consideration to those who rely on pets for companionship when making provision for them. I will ensure that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns; if they have further proposals to bring forward, I am sure that they will do so.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys.
For several years, I have received correspondence from former constituents who have moved to countries such as Australia and Canada after a lifetime of paying tax in the UK. Nearly half a million British pensioners abroad have their state pensions frozen, while those in the EU and the United States receive annual increases. That is even the case for those who retire to the British overseas territories of Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos. How can it be right that British nationals are treated differently depending on where they live? Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this long standing injustice?
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Isle of Man on Tynwald Day, and wish its people every success going forward.
On the issue of frozen state pensions, I cannot respond in any detail now, because it is a pretty complex area and I may well get it wrong. However, I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the relevant Ministers, and see whether we can get an update on where we are and what proposals there might be in future. If the hon. Gentleman seeks a debate about this issue—because not just his constituents will be affected, although he takes a particular interest in overseas territories—he may well get an opportunity to put his concerns directly to the relevant Minister.
Just over 18 months ago, Harshita Brella was murdered in Corby and her body was found in the boot of a car. We are aware that there is an ongoing police investigation, and none of us wants to do anything to prejudice that, but her family feel isolated; recently, they flew over from India to get an update. When they hear nothing, they feel as though nothing is happening, so will the Leader of the House work with Home Office and Foreign Office colleagues to ensure that the family receive monthly updates on what progress is being made in securing justice for Harshita?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important case, and share his horror at this horrific attack—our thoughts remain with Harshita’s friends and family, and I understand the strength of feeling about this case. As my hon. Friend points out, there is an ongoing investigation, but I understand that the Home Office will be writing to him soon to address his concerns. Should he want a further meeting with Home Office representatives, I am sure they would be happy to arrange it.
Yesterday, over 50 parliamentarians from across this House and their Ukrainian counterparts wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian cartoon series in which the militarisation of children and a distinct lack of regard for boundaries are key themes. It is currently streamed to British children on Netflix and ITVX; it is produced by a Russian studio paying tax to the Russian state, and has been labelled an instrument of Russian soft power by the Ukrainian Centre for Countering Disinformation. Does the Leader of the House agree that British children should not be an audience for content with these propaganda concerns, and will he ask the Secretary of State for DCMS to make a statement on what the Government intend to do about it?
I share concerns if children are being bombarded with propaganda, because that would be highly inappropriate, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise those concerns. I will take them up with the Secretary of State for DCMS and get an update on what the Government intend to do, and can do, about this matter.
It has been more than two years since the devastating explosion at Coronation Terrace in Willington, and although the immediate emergency has long since passed, the impact on local residents continues. Families have had to live alongside an unsightly, derelict and potentially dangerous site, and there have been prolonged delays in resolving insurance claims involving numerous parties, leaving the community in limbo. As usual, discussions take place behind closed doors, but my constituents deserve to see all those involved working together to bring this matter to a conclusion. Will the Leader of the House advise me on the best way to expedite action in cases such as these, where complex insurance processes appear to have stalled progress for far too long?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter—she is an assiduous campaigner for her wonderful constituency. It is important that work is done, and that that work is transparent and timely. I encourage the local council to engage with this matter and to work with my hon. Friend to resolve it. It is the council’s responsibility to help with these matters, but I will reach out to the relevant Government Department to request that it provides my hon. Friend with any available guidance.
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the escalating abduction crisis in northern Nigeria? Reports indicate that some 1,100 people were abducted in the first four months of this year, and last week, gunmen—terrorists—attacked Government Day secondary school in Lassa, Borno state, and abducted 36 students and one staff member during examination time. What representations have the Government made to the Nigerian authorities to strengthen civilian protection, secure the release of those still held captive, and tackle the armed groups responsible for these attacks?
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I saw those reports, and what is happening is appalling. The UK stands firmly against these attacks, and at this difficult time we stand firmly with the people and Government of Nigeria and with the families of the children who have been abducted. We continue to work closely with the Government of Nigeria, including through our ongoing security and defence partnership. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with the Foreign Office.
Craigmark Burntonians, a club from my home town and the community I am proud to represent, have won the west of Scotland football league division 3. Vital amateur league football plays a great part in our local communities. I would like to thank Steve Clarke, an Ayrshire man, for his outstanding contribution over the past seven years, which included taking Scotland to the world cup, and that is not to forget our fantastic, amazing fans. Does the Minister agree that those achievements highlight the need for a debate on the vital role that football plays in our local communities?
Football at every level, from Sunday league to the world cup, plays an important part in local communities across the United Kingdom. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Craigmark Burntonians on their success. I recommend, particularly in the light of what is unfolding at the world cup, that she apply for a debate on the importance of football. I am sure it would be well attended.
The Leader of the House will be well aware that our UK Labour Government have given more than £340 million to the Plaid Cymru minority Government in Wales, specifically for those with additional learning needs. Could he explain why this money has not been distributed to local councils, as all 22 local authorities and every teaching union have called for? Why is this vital funding being held back? Why is it not being used to support our Welsh pupils with ALN? I am at a loss to understand it. Could he help, please?
I am not in a position to help, because I do not understand either. It seems incongruous given what this Government are seeking to do and, I would have thought, with the intended actions of the new Administration in Wales. It is a great deal of money and the need is there, so I do not understand why it has not happened. I hope that the Welsh Government have listened to the very wise words of my hon. Friend. Let us see what happens. Should she want to hear directly from a Minister about what further we can do from here, I would advise her to seek an Adjournment debate.
Last week, Sarah, the head of pastoral services at Hexham Priory school, and the Friends of Hexham Priory school began their 24-hour challenge. They raised more than £28,000 by running and walking laps of Wentworth leisure centre in Hexham for a continuous 24-hour period—in one of the hottest weeks on record, no less. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on their actions? Will he support a debate in Government time on support for respite services for the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities in rural areas?
I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating the remarkable achievement of Sarah Dodd and the Friends of Hexham Priory school, who raised more than £28,000, particularly since it was during a heatwave. I would be happy to raise my hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Department for Education so that he can discuss how respite services for families of children with complex needs can be improved, but he will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Education is on the Front Bench and will have heard his remarks.
This weekend, more than half a million people from around the world will descend on the Silverstone circuit—half of which is located in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency—hopefully to see another British win at the British grand prix. The race will also allow Buckinghamshire to showcase its status as a hub for high performance engineering in which more than 8,000 people are employed by 1,700 businesses. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing British racers the best of luck this weekend, and might he find time for a debate on the contribution of Formula 1 and motorsport to the UK economy?
I certainly send everyone my best wishes and I agree with my hon. Friend that Formula 1 and motorsports generally bring a huge advantage to our economy, whether that is through the highly skilled engineers, researchers and developers or the success of British drivers including Sir Lewis Hamilton, George Russell and Lando Norris. We have a great deal to celebrate, and I hope there is more to celebrate in the future. I hope that all fans enjoy the race this weekend, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter today.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the 2nd Wednesfield scout group on its upcoming 100th anniversary? I give particular thanks to Steve Rogers, better known as Codge, for 50 years of service. He has shown incredible dedication to so many young people, over many generations, in and around Wednesfield. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Codge and all involved in our scout groups in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the good work of the scouts, and I join her in congratulating the 2nd Wednesfield scout group on its upcoming centenary—a remarkable achievement. I also join her in expressing thanks for the voluntary service of Steve Rogers, and of all scout and girl guide leaders, who generously give their time in support of young people.
On Sunday, I was delighted to attend a teatime event with the Fulford community choir. It was an uplifting and joyous event, and I congratulate Gail Sullivan, Wendy Godfrey, Dan Hollinghurst, Rowena Davies and all the volunteers and musicians who helped organise the event. Does the Leader of the House agree that choirs and community events, such as the one at Fulford village hall, do so much to improve mental health, tackle loneliness, and strengthen our communities and villages, such as Fulford?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that choirs and local events can do so much to support and bring together our local communities, including by helping with mental health and combating loneliness. Volunteers who help to organise events, such as the members of the Fulford community choir, provide an invaluable service to their local community, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise them.
Heat related mortality has taken 10,000 lives in England over the last five years and exacerbated the risk of ill health, from asthma to stroke. With climate degradation, things are only going to get worse. What steps are the Government taking to address this issue and ensure that there are proper facilities in workplaces, homes and communities, to future proof our society against extreme heat?
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. We know that extreme weather events are getting more common and that these issues will not go away. We are working across Government to respond to severe heatwaves and mobilise support, particularly for the most vulnerable, who are of course at greatest risk of harm. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are taking action to combat climate change, and I will make sure that the points she raises are shared with the relevant Minister.
Wolverhampton community radio—101.8 WCR FM—in my constituency provides a vital service for people across the city. It gives a platform to local voices, community groups, charities and volunteers, and keeps residents informed about the issues that matter to them most. I have been on the radio talking about knife crime and the Pride in Place programme. At a time when we have had reductions in local radio services following commercial radio mergers, will the Leader of the House please agree to a debate in Government time to recognise the invaluable contribution of community radio stations, such as Wolverhampton community radio, and the importance of providing sustainable, long term funding for community broadcasting across the country?
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the role that local radio plays in giving a platform to local voices and communities. We have launched our local media strategy, with an increase in community radio funding to £1 million per year. I suggest that my hon. Friend apply for a Westminster Hall debate to discuss the role that radio plays in our local communities, because every constituency will be affected.
I recently did the school run in Ilkeston with Bebe Newton, experiencing it in the way that she does: in a wheelchair. We navigated broken pavements, uneven crossings and all kinds of poorly placed street furniture. It really showed me the barriers that disabled people face every day of their lives. It was so difficult, mentally and physically exhausting and, at times, dangerous. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate so that we can examine properly the experiences of disabled people and the barriers that they face in everyday life?
As ever, my hon. Friend is a champion for the rights of his constituents, and I pay tribute to him for that. We are committed to ensuring that streets and transport networks are accessible for everyone, including disabled people. However, the overall responsibility for the management of pavements, crossings and street furniture lies with the local highway authority. I hope that it has heard his powerful representation on behalf of his constituents.
After holding a series of stakeholder events with local businesses and charities and an online survey attracting more than 1,000 responses, I have recently published the results of a city centre survey for Dunfermline. That survey highlighted that people are very proud to live in Scotland’s newest city and ancient capital, but that improvements are needed in the city centre itself to improve aesthetics and attract new businesses. Does the Leader of the House agree that the people of Dunfermline deserve to see improvements in their city centre, and will he help me deliver that for my constituents?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Scotland has so many brilliant places to visit, and he is right to promote his city of Dunfermline. We are committed to backing Britain’s tourism industry, which supports over 1.3 million jobs and £64.3 billion in gross value added to the economy. I recommend that he applies for what would be a very popular Westminster Hall debate.
Around 59% of children in the most deprived areas reach a good level of development by the time they start primary school compared with 79% in the least deprived areas. Babyzone is a charity set up to level the playing field by providing free to access community hubs that offer services to support children’s development. I recently had the privilege of opening Babyzone’s first Scottish hub in Easterhouse, which I know will make a real difference to local families. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Babyzone’s work, and will he consider allocating parliamentary time to debate how we can close the development gap between affluent and poorer neighbourhoods so that every child gets a fair start in life?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise charities such as Babyzone, which deliver a truly positive impact on local communities. Improving outcomes for pupils in deprived areas is an essential part of this Government’s wider mission to ensure that every child, whatever their background, can succeed. I certainly encourage her to apply for a debate on these matters so that Ministers can not just praise the success of organisations such as Babyzone, but outline plans about what further measures we intend to take.
Ward Jackson primary school in Hartlepool has been named one of the top 10 schools in the world for overcoming adversity on behalf of their pupils. In the words of the award organiser, it is a school where “leaders refuse to let circumstance define what a child can become.”
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating pupils, families, governors and especially the extraordinary school staff at Ward Jackson on this brilliant achievement in leaving no child behind, which shows Hartlepool once again leading on the world stage?
This Government are absolutely committed to giving every child the best start in life, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Ward Jackson primary school on being named one of the top 10 schools in the world for overcoming adversity. I am sure that this achievement would not have been possible without the support of the brilliant staff, the pupils’ hard work and the dedication of the families.
Order. That completes business questions.
This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories—I found it particularly hard as a dad—but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.
What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.
These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.
These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976, but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.
Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.
Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told: “You will remember the pain, because you’ve been a bad girl.”
Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely.
I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry.
To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical.
To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second class.
To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected.
To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families, and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents.
To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes.
I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was “raised with racist views towards her own biological family.”
Mr Speaker, how do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry.
Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry. Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it: “We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us”.
Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered, or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again.
We say sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so they remain available across the lifetime of those affected.
Today, the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently most limited. We will establish national virtual peer led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma informed support across the country.
We will work with NHS England to ensure those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record.
Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country.
Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice.
Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry.
I commend this statement to the House.
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged.
One hundred and eighty five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history.
Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years.
One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital “was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.”
Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years.
Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it?
I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.
I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his response and for welcoming what the Government have set out today. I also thank him for the care and attention that he has shown personally to this issue and linked issues.
I genuinely believe it is so important that we speak with one voice in the House today, so that those affected know that this is an apology from all of us in equal measure and that the House is united on this issue. I thank him for speaking in that way, because the issue impacts not us in the Chamber but all those who have been affected. To know that the whole House supports the apology that has been given today, and how it has been given, is really important.
On the hon. Member’s questions, we are looking at schemes. We are being guided by those affected as to the support that they think is most important to them, and we will continue to be guided in that way. He also asked about responsibility, which will be with the Department for Education. I am happy to provide him with further information as these things develop.
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
The evidence that the Education Committee heard from mothers and adult adoptees was utterly devastating. I thank Diana Defries, Ann Lloyd Keen, Sally Ells and Debbie Iromlou for courageously reliving their trauma so that we could shine a light on the extent of the injustice they suffered and the urgent need for a meaningful response. They should not have had to work so hard for so long just to be heard and to have their experiences recognised.
I also thank the academics who gave evidence, and especially Professor Gordon Harold and Dr Michael Lambert, whose painstaking and rigorous research helped to prove what mothers and adult adoptees have long known: that the state was culpable for the wrongs they suffered by presiding over, funding and facilitating a system that dehumanised unmarried pregnant women and their babies, and inflicted horrific cruelty upon them.
I thank the Prime Minister for this apology today. It is long overdue and much needed. I thank him for the breadth of the apology and for the Government’s work with survivors to get to this point. Women whose babies were forcibly adopted and who endured cruelty and humiliation in mother and baby homes and in the NHS should know today that the shame of this period in our history rests on the Government and on the religious and community and healthcare organisations who presided over, facilitated and sustained the system; it is not, and never was, theirs to carry.
This apology is a watershed, but it must be only the beginning of putting right the disgraceful wrongs of this shameful period of our history. May I ask the Prime Minister to set out how progress on delivering the support he has announced will be monitored and how survivors will continue to be involved in it? Will he ensure that as the Government progress this work, information on how to access that support will be made widely available?
So many families have a story, and there are so many stories that are still untold with so many still feeling ashamed to speak about this period in their lives and its lifelong impact. They must no longer feel ashamed; they must feel that they can come forward and access the help and support they need.
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done and led through the Education Committee, and I also thank all the members of that Committee. I heard about the testimony to the Committee and how difficult and harrowing it was for all concerned. She is absolutely right to thank those who gave their testimony and those who supported its work.
My hon. Friend used the word “dehumanised”. That is the right word, although it hardly feels strong enough to me. To break the bond between a mother and a child is nothing less than dehumanising. It goes to an intense feeling that we all have as human beings. To break that bond is indescribably painful—even to describe, let alone to have gone through—so “dehumanising” is the right word.
As I heard this morning from those in the Gallery, it is about not just the initial act and all the pain and anguish, but the everyday reminders, like when people ask, “Do you have children?” What a difficult and awful question to answer over and over again, and they have all had to come to terms with how they answer that question. It is a question that we might all hear or pose on a daily or weekly basis—it is such a simple, everyday thing, but it is so painful. That really struck me this morning, and there will be thousands of things like that across all the testimonies and stories.
To my hon. Friend’s question about monitoring, that will be done by the Department for Education, and we will, of course, involve survivors as we go forward. I have no doubt that the Education Committee will want to monitor that itself and be updated on it regularly.
My hon. Friend’s point about making sure it is widely known that support is available is so important. Many thousands of people will need the support, and they must know that it is available. As I said in my statement, I am acutely conscious that there are some who to this day have still not been able to speak about this. I hope that by making it widely known that support is available, some may feel able to come forward and get the support that they need.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, and we associate ourselves fully with all his remarks, including those about being united as one House in this apology.
I pay tribute to all the mothers and children who have campaigned so bravely and for so long for this apology. Speaking as a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma, agony and shame that they experienced and had to live with. The testimony that they gave to the Education Committee this year is some of the most powerful and harrowing ever heard in this Parliament. The mothers who gave birth were denied pain relief as “punishment” and then given just a few hours or days with their newborn baby before they were stolen away. The children only found out years or decades later what had happened to them, discovering that they were victims of this appalling scandal. That evil has been compounded by the long wait for an apology. It should have come long before now.
It is a tragedy that Veronica Smith, whose daughter was taken from her 60 years ago and who founded the Movement for an Adoption Apology 16 years ago, sadly passed away before she could see her campaign succeed. This apology is a tribute to her and all who fought alongside her. I hope it gives them some sense of closure. I hope it helps them know that the blame does not lie with them, and never did, but with those who did this to them and those who allowed it to happen. That includes the Church of England, the Catholic Church, charities and, of course, the state.
As the Committee heard, an apology in words alone is not enough; it has to mean action to help heal the trauma that this scandal has caused. I very much welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has announced today on adoption records, trauma informed support and the testimonials project. Will that support include a specialist mental health pathway for all those who need it? Will he commit to a continuing dialogue with the survivors on any further support or redress that they want?
Today’s apology is not the end. It must be the beginning of a better, more caring approach to these mothers and their children.
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming this apology, and I repeat just how important it is that we are united across this House, speaking with one voice. I thank her for saying that.
The hon. Lady mentioned the long wait for an apology and for justice. It has been a double injustice. There is not just what happened, but then the fight, as is often the case, for acknowledgment of what went wrong. We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, “Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?” That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others. I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to that.
We are looking at mental health pathways, which are vital. We are looking at how they need to be tailored, trauma informed and developed. We will of course continue the dialogue with all those affected, and with the Education Committee and the House.
As an adopted person born in 1972, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. I have no idea if my birth mother felt forced to have me adopted, but I do know that prior to the birth, she was in a Church of Scotland mother and baby home. My adoptive parents have since died, but I am sure that they would not have wanted to adopt any child who had been forcibly removed from their mother. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that mothers should be supported by the state to look after their children and not forced to give them up?
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experience—it is obvious how hard that is. To say out loud, in a Chamber like this, things that are intensely personal and private, full of pain and grief, is really difficult. It is hard for some of us to comprehend just how difficult that must be, so I salute her courage and resilience, and all those who have spoken out. To have to speak out about something that is so intensely difficult over and over again is incredibly, incredibly demanding, but I hope there can be comfort not only in that you have been seen and heard because of it but in the fact that others will have the courage too to speak out about what happened to them. I thank her in that regard as well. We must keep up the support and the dialogue, and we will. I thank my hon. Friend again for her remarks.
I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said, and I join him in his apology. Of course, while historical misdeeds—and these are misdeeds—have got to be condemned, individuals have to be judged by the standards and morality of their own time, not ours. We have to bear that in mind. But I will say this: those of us who claim to be of religious persuasion should remember that our religion should be one not of judgment but of love, and that love should extend to everybody—young mothers, babies, and every frail person—from the very beginning of life to the very end.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, his welcoming of the report and his comments about love. I have to confess that I do not entirely agree with what he said about judging people by the standards of the day. I understand the point that he makes, but I think that something as visceral as this is wrong according to any standards—then and now. I am not disrespecting the point that he makes, but I just personally feel quite strongly that to dehumanise someone in this way is hard to explain—whenever it happened, whatever the standards in place. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said.
I thank the Prime Minister for his really heartfelt statement—I think everybody here could feel that. Does he agree that we must recognise that a lack of empathy and dehumanising approach was adopted in this practice? I am minded that the statement “Don’t judge someone before you walk in their shoes” should apply. Unfortunately, in some service areas, we do not apply that principle, and it is demonising and dehumanising people. We need to recognise and support our common humanity.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for what she has done on this and on so many other issues. She is absolutely right that this cannot simply be a backward looking exercise; we have to carry the principles that sit behind this apology into all the other instances when there is disrespect and a lack of regard for people’s dignity. If we commit to that, it will make the apology more meaningful, I am sure.
May I thank the Prime Minister for the incredibly powerful statement? I was lucky enough to bring forward legislation for victims of institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland. As part of that legislation, there was an apology. Those people, like the victims in this case, waited decades for people in important positions to properly listen to them, and I think what the Prime Minister has done today is a massive step forward. Even when the apology took place in Northern Ireland, though, the churches could not bring themselves to move away from the script provided by their lawyers, so I urge every institution that has been involved in these horrendous crimes to properly say sorry. We have heard about the processes that will follow this statement, but may I urge the Prime Minister to use the considerable power that he will have as a former Prime Minister to stay involved in this issue?
First, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will stay involved in this issue; it is a deep injustice. Secondly, I thank him for his work in Northern Ireland, because it was a really important moment. He is absolutely right about the way others address these issues—he gave the example of the churches. If you say that you see someone and you hear someone, you have to see them and you have to hear them. You cannot give an apology that is just lawyer’s script. You have to listen, you have to take it in, you have to try and understand—though you cannot completely because you have not been through what they have been through.
In that regard, I would like, if I may, to thank the Secretary of State and her team for the way that they have gone about preparing this. I know that they have tried their level best to make sure that they have reflected seeing and hearing those who have been affected. It does make a difference, because an apology can be a formal form of words or it can be something that is heartfelt and meaningful. I hope beyond hope that today is received as something heartfelt and meaningful, and I extend thanks to the team in Government who have done so much work to try to ensure that that is the way that today is received.
I must start by thanking the victims and sufferers who came to the Education Committee and shared their harrowing, first hand lived experiences. It was extremely difficult to hear but—my gosh—it must have been unimaginable to actually live those experiences. But again and again, the victims were put through processes where they had to relive their trauma in an unacceptable struggle for the justice they deserve. I thank the Prime Minister for his unreserved, heartfelt apology, but does he agree that this must be just the beginning, with survivor led support, specialised counselling, improved access to records and help to reunite families living with this injustice?
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area and for her powerful intervention and question. She is absolutely right about not just the initial injustice, but all the hoops, burdens and barriers that were then put in place; at almost every twist and turn, of every road, fresh barriers were put in place. That is why this absolutely must be the beginning of survivor led support, and we mark it in that way.
We heard on the Education Committee harrowing testimonies of the cruelty that unmarried mothers and their babies were subjected to. They were shamed, coerced and separated from their babies, causing lifelong trauma for them all. The Government’s apology is welcome yet long overdue, because for many survivors, official recognition of this injustice is an essential step towards healing. Ensuring that survivors obtain information about their personal histories is fundamental, so will the Prime Minister set out a timescale for the national online resource to improve access to adoption records?
I thank the hon. Member for her work on the Committee and agree with her that the apology is long overdue; it should have been given a long time ago, in my view. The point that she makes about information is important, and the online resource will be put in place as quickly as possible. It is not a small matter, because this is information that belongs to those who are affected. It is not information that is provided to them out of some service from the state; it is their information. The fact that barriers have been put in the way of those seeking their own information about their own lives and their own identity is an appalling additional injustice, of which there are very many in these cases.
I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his statement. In my role as the chair of the all party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, he will know that I wrote to him at the start of the year about the importance of issuing this apology. I really thank him for the way that he has done that.
We know that from that post war era to 1976, 185,000 families—that number is hard to appreciate—were affected by forced adoption, including 404 families in my own city. Will he ensure rapid access to therapeutic support? We know that it is incredibly difficult, both for adoptees and for women and those who were girls who had their babies forcibly removed. Will he consider babies who were brought to the UK from other jurisdictions and who were also forcibly removed from their mothers?
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the APPG and for her campaigning, and acknowledge what she has done. As for the number, 185,000 is a shocking figure, but I worry that it may be higher than that. I worry that there are cases that we still do not know about—those where the records are not available and where, as I say, some people feel that they still cannot talk. That rapid access to therapeutic support is hugely important and she is right to highlight it.
To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry. It is shameful that Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army have yet to apologise and face up to the role that they played in this. My father was haunted by the way in which Barnardo’s played a role and he would tell me of his horror, which he carried for life, of seeing the laundries as he walked around the streets of Dublin.
In addition to those who were cruelly and forcibly adopted, hundreds of babies died—frankly, they were killed—as their mothers were tortured, and they were buried in unmarked graves. Will the Prime Minister, as he continues with his important work on this, put in place an effort to find those graves and to force the opening up of those records so that the mothers who were denied a lifetime of memories with their children can at least now bury them and have time at those graves with them?
I can give that undertaking, and I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. With each question, with each issue, we can begin to understand the very many ways in which the injustice—across a number of different fields and a number of different strands—played its part. For those who lost their babies altogether, that work on graves and on records is really important.
I echo the Prime Minister’s powerful tribute to the women—the mothers—and the families who suffered and struggled for so long for this apology, and who suffer still the legacy of such state failure and, indeed, state cruelty. It shames us, but never them. The moral outrage targeted against unmarried mothers has largely passed, but the Prime Minister spoke about the lack of compassion that enabled the state cruelty; still today, we too often see, increasingly in bureaucratic processes, in technology and in under resourced state capability, a lack of compassion and understanding. What can the Prime Minister say to reassure us that action can be taken to ensure humanity and compassion from the state?
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she draws attention to the suffering. We absolutely have to make sure that compassion is there in everything the state does. We can change rules and processes, but it is a culture; it is about recognising that human dignity matters whoever you are and wherever you are. If that was inserted into everything that the Government and the state did, what a difference it would make! Human dignity is one of the most important things to me and my politics, and that is what has been lacking here. We will do everything we can to turn that around.
I thank the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology and his statement. Nothing can undo the horrific harm and trauma that have been caused. He outlined the national online resource and national virtual peer led support groups. Can I press him to say what steps will be taken to support those who might struggle to access digital services, and who might be digitally excluded? Will he consider setting up a national hotline, so that everyone can get justice, whether they can use technology or not?
We are setting up a national advice line. It is important that it is national, available and comes in different forms. Digital will work for most people, but not necessarily everyone. We need to make sure that everybody affected and everybody who has not come forward yet finds a way to get that support in the appropriate way. We will take those steps.
I too thank the Prime Minister for this important statement, and I pay tribute to the courage of the women who came forward, including my constituent Ann Keen. I met Ann shortly after I was elected in 2019 —we first met online—and what I sensed in Ann was someone who was not going to give up until her voice, and the voices of the many women who suffered this injustice, had been heard, and that wrong had been made right. Ann has worked tirelessly with many other campaigners. In that cross party spirit, I pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess, who also led on this issue; he delivered a letter to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in May 2021. I still have a text message on my phone from Ann telling me what more I could do. I also served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we launched our report on this subject in July 2022, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness Harman.
It is right that this apology has come, but as everyone has said, this apology is not enough. What more can be done to ensure that the voices of women are taken seriously? We had the maternity statement the other day. A running theme in all these injustices is women not being believed, women being silenced, and women being told that they are the problem. What more can we do to ensure that women’s voices are front and centre when it comes to matters concerning them?
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the anguish that the mothers must have felt, and the constant sense of shame that was inflicted, including on the adult adoptees; they described that to me this morning. The message of being unwanted is really hard. As they said to me this morning, it is not something you can just offload; it is not something that changes. Again, as we discussed this morning, even where parents and children have been reunited, that has not been easy. It is not walking off into the sunset, as we would all like to believe; it is the extremely difficult next chapter of a journey. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for reminding us of the work of Sir David Amess on this. She is absolutely right that the voices of women have not been heard in the way that they should have been, and that this is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of behaviour. We have to do better than this.
My own mother was pressurised into giving up a baby for adoption, and this was handled by the Church. I found out only after her death. She carried her secret to her grave. When I found out, I tried to find my sibling, but drew a blank. I had to pay privately to find him, and we have now been united. Can the Prime Minister assure those affected that the new systems and resources will be given the funding that they need to reunite families?
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that personal story; we can see just how difficult that must have been, and she has shown huge courage in saying that in the Chamber today. The way she described her mother taking the secret to her grave is very powerful. It is an example of the way in which some people simply feel that they cannot talk about this, and did not talk about this. Those who have passed will never now be able to talk about this. She shows great courage in speaking on her mother’s behalf as well. I am glad that there has been that reuniting, but it should not be the painful journey that she has just described. We have to do better than that, and we will.
I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere and moving apology, and I stand with him on it, as I am sure everyone does, across this Chamber. There is possibly no dry eye in the Chamber. That demonstrates the effect this will have had on all of us, as a society.
The Prime Minister will know that when I was the children and families Minister, I met campaigners on this subject, and victims of the abhorrent abuse that is historical forced adoption. It feels to me, as I hope it feels to them and to everyone from across the Chamber, as though the tide is beginning to turn. I am overjoyed about this apology, but we have already heard that it has been a long time coming. That needs to be recognised. I hope that what comes out of this situation is more caring and more compassion coming through in our society. We lack those, and we will need them more and more as days go by.
The Prime Minister mentioned therapy and new support for clinicians. That therapy and support will need to be there for adoptive families, extended families and, of course, the adopted adults. Will he say more about what the new support for clinicians will be? If he cannot say that now, will he agree for written statements to be made to the House? Adopted children need specialist therapy, in particular dyadic developmental psychotherapy. I press him again to look at that.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for the work that she did as children and families Minister; she did a lot on this, and I pay tribute to her for it. She is right about the support that is needed, particularly specialist therapy; I am in no doubt about that. It is important that we are raising funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund to £55 million. Across this House, we need to keep talking to those affected to make sure that we get this right.
The Prime Minister has done a good deed today, and he is deservedly getting the united response from the House that he requested. He mentioned the admirable idea of putting the documentation online; will there be a facility on the website for people to upload their own stories, if they wish to do so?
One aspect that is being somewhat skirted around is why this happened in the first place. The answer appears to be that there was too much state respect for dogmatic and fundamentalist interpretations of religious doctrine. Can we look at our society today and say that there is not still, in some parts of that society, too much religious repression of women, and too much respect for cultural sensitivities, which are preventing us from tackling that?
Yes, we can and should say that, and I thank the right hon. Member for reminding us that this is not all about the past. If we mean what we say, we have to tackle the present as well. I was struck not just by the dogmatic adherence to views at the time, but the complete lack of empathy, the complete lack of feeling. That is something else. That goes beyond dogma; that is just how human beings treat each other. I have had examples described to me of individual human beings dehumanising other individual human beings, when they did not have to. They chose to act in that way, adding even more grief and pain to what was an awful injustice in any event.
As for the uploading of stories, there will be the facility for testimonials to be there—obviously, only if people want to share them. We are looking at how that could be done.
I thank the Prime Minister wholeheartedly for this apology. Everyone present can see the pain, and the real need for this. I want to ask quite a technical point about the national online resource. Families often end up paying huge amounts of money to try to locate family members. Often, DNA is a way that people are reunited. Is that something that has been considered, in terms of the online resource, in order to help people reunite with family members in cases where records have been lost, heavily redacted or withheld?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. We are working with all those affected, and with the families. precisely on the issue of ensuring that all the relevant information is put together. It is a difficult job, because it is held in different places in different ways. I cannot stand here and pretend that all the information is available, and that we simply have to get it in one place. It will take a lot of work to get it all there, and some of it may not be retrievable, but we will do everything we can to ensure that it is as complete as possible, as quickly as possible.
The apology today is so welcome, and my heart goes out to all those people who have campaigned and been hurt by the failings of the state. In his statement, the Prime Minister said, “These harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state.” Just this week in this Chamber, we have heard of that happening to women—when they are pregnant, labouring, or have just had a baby and are vulnerable. The Adjournment debate on Monday night was about diethylstilbestrol—DES—and justice for women who, over the decades, were prescribed a drug long after it was known that it was harmful. Baroness Amos’s report this week says that this is not just a historical problem of misogyny in the state; today, women who are having children are ridiculed and not listened to, and are hurt as a result. I ask the Prime Minister: how can we unwind misogyny from the state?
We have to tackle misogyny in all its forms, wherever it rears its head. It is here with us today, and as she rightly says, we have even heard of it this week in the Chamber, in various debates in which issues have been raised; these issues are constantly raised. It is important that we address this by looking at it historically, up to today, and then forward, in and across the board. I thank the hon. Member for raising it.
I add my thanks to the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology from the Government for the historical forced adoptions in mother and baby homes across the country. It is something that I have campaigned for since coming to this place. For far too long, the horrific experiences of mothers and their children were ignored. Sadly, many passed away before this day finally came. I join everybody here in paying tribute to all the mothers, children and campaigners, and the relatives who have supported them along the way. They have fought tirelessly; I recognise their courage and determination. Today, we take away their shame, because it is not theirs to bear.
Many have been left scarred by the trauma that they endured—a lifetime of feeling unworthy, unloved, judged and guilty. Many babies lost their life due to poor maternity care, and the locations of their burials are not known. Could the Prime Minister consider a way to memorialise the lives lost and give back some dignity? Does he also recognise that even modern adoption practices are inadequate, leaving adoptees and their families ill equipped to deal with trauma, attachment issues and identity struggles, and that we must learn lessons from all these historical events?
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. In both respects, we have to find a way of providing memory to those who lost their lives. To those mothers who passed away before today, this took too long. As a result of that, they are not hearing this apology. We need to be clear: that is an additional injustice.
This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it.
I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years. They have provided a loving and nurturing home to Alfie, but have persistently come up against blocks from the state as they seek to adopt him. With Walsall council in particular, they found it very difficult to gain support so that they could make progress on adopting Alfie and, regretfully, they have now had to instruct the local authority to look at a new fostering placement for him. Does the Prime Minister agree that while a pragmatic balance has to be struck between safeguarding and enabling a loving home to be found, the state must remove any bureaucratic obstructions along the way? Will the Prime Minister support me in trying to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that Jenny and Scott can elaborate on this more comprehensively?
I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of Jenny, Scott and Alfie. I assure him that if he provides the full details, I will ensure not only that the relevant meeting takes place, but that we look at the details of that particular case.
I thank the Prime Minister for his moving statement and the formal apology today. We have heard the heartfelt personal experiences of Members across the House and the experiences of their constituents, and it has been deeply moving. I know that all our thoughts are with the mothers, babies and families separated and with everyone in England who has lived with this trauma. The shame was never theirs, and this apology recognises that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) promoted a Bill, Philomena’s law, that I was honoured to co sponsor. It would ensure that victims of mother and baby homes in Ireland would not lose care support for accepting compensation that they are rightly owed. In the spirit of the statement today, will the Prime Minister reiterate this Government’s commitment that the social care entitlements of survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes will be protected? Will he ensure that we continue to work closely with the Government of Ireland to ensure that British survivors abroad are also supported?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. I am aware of the issues, and I will remake that commitment.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for the apology on behalf of the state. I acknowledge the visitors we have in the Gallery today and the extraordinary testimonies of Members across this House. So often this Chamber is divided along the lines of party politics, but on days like this, we are united as living, breathing and feeling human beings, and I think the Chamber is at its best in those moments.
My constituent Lynne was forcibly adopted shortly after the second world war. To understand her health concerns, she was eager to learn something of her family’s medical past. She was denied access to medical records for many decades. In fact, it was only a very helpful social worker who sought to try to reconstruct her family’s medical past for her and with her. Could the Prime Minister say more about whether the new national online resource will include details such as family medical history, so that constituents like Lynne might better understand their own health concerns? Bearing in mind the highly time sensitive nature, given that often the children were born in the late 1940s and 1950s, can he say more about the timescales he expects to deliver this new resource?
The unity across the House and the courage of a number of Members in speaking out has been incredibly powerful. I think this aspect of how this House works is not well known enough, and we all have a duty to show this House when it is behaving well, not just when it is behaving not so well.
The business of being denied access to records goes really deep. Individuals are trying to access records about their lives and their identities, and yet barriers have been put in the way of them accessing their own material. That has to stop. We need to do everything we can to make sure that those medical histories are available, and the hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to move at speed, because we are talking about events, in some cases, of many years ago. We need to move at speed, and we need to remove the barriers. This is personal information—private information—about people and their background and their identity; they are entitled to it. Nobody should be putting barriers in the way of that, but I know that has been done.
I am really grateful to the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and apology. As a man of faith, I struggle to see what possible religious justification there could have been to take babies away from young mothers just because they were not married, and I have to feel a sense of shame that religion could be used in such a way. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all the mothers, campaigners and members of trade unions, including members of my own trade union, the GMB, for their decades of campaigning to achieve this apology. One would have hoped that the apology could have come sooner, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing?
It is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing—I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, including the GMB and other trade unions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about what went wrong. The question that should have been asked was, “What support can we give you to be able to bring up your baby?” not the questions that were asked. If that question had been asked, we would not be standing here today in the way that we are.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament when it issued its own apology, and I know how important that was to those families. How will the Government work with devolved Governments to provide ongoing support, access to records and potential redress schemes to those affected?
I thank the hon. Member for reminding us how important it was in Scotland as well. We have to work with the devolved nations on this. It is important that we do so constructively, positively and at speed, because everybody affected needs to know that we are all pulling together and that, where information and support is needed, it will be provided as quickly as possible.
I welcome today’s heartfelt and important apology. The Prime Minister may recall that 16 years ago, Gordon Brown publicly apologised to Britain’s child migrants—130,000 young children who were sent overseas, often without their parents’ consent, to Commonwealth countries around the world. Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust, which is based in my constituency, continue to support survivors and campaign for recognition and redress. Following today’s apology, alongside the very important commitments that the Prime Minister has made, will he also consider what more can be done to support the child migrants and to honour the national apology that was made back in 2010?
The 2010 apology was a solemn moment, and work continues to honour the legacy of that apology, just as work will continue to honour and follow through on the apology that has been issued today.
It is barbaric that 185,000 babies were taken from young mothers across a quarter of a century until just 50 years ago, and the Prime Minister is right to say how wrong that was. In apologising on behalf of the state, he acknowledged that, of the children who were taken, some were raised in loving homes by adoptive families. Does he accept that it is possible to say sorry to birth parents and their children while simultaneously being grateful to parents who did their very best to adopt children over that period, many of whom did not know about the circumstances in which those babies were removed from their birth parents?
I do not want to go against the spirit of the hon. Member’s question, but I do have to say this. Too many of those who were adopted were told that they should be grateful for what happened to them, and too many of the mothers were told that they should be grateful that their children would get care they could not provide. That, in itself, was deeply hurtful—deeply, deeply hurtful. I am not suggesting that others did not try to do their level best, but this was not a situation in which anybody affected should feel or be told that they should be grateful for what happened. I am not disrespecting the hon. Member’s question; it is just that, having had the discussions I had this morning, I know that this is felt very, very deeply, so I must therefore say that from this Dispatch Box. Otherwise, I thank him for his question.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him wholeheartedly in standing with the victims—those here and those who are not with us. As he said, it is another example of the perpetuation of abuse, because there was not just the initial abuse but the cover up, the secondary abuse that followed, and the denial and the frustration for victims, their families and friends to get the truth. What more can he say about that and the culture change that can be embedded not just across the state but in every applicable institution, so that not only this stops happening but there is accountability where it does once again happen?
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said about the Child Migrants Trust, which I worked with before coming to this place. I urge the Education Secretary to look at the work it has done on testimonials, because some of the experience there will be invaluable for victims if they want their stories to be told and recorded.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I think it is really important that we learn those lessons and draw where we can on the examples of other apologies and the legacy. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is not just the initial injustice; there are all the further injustices at almost every twist and turn—those who were adopted being told when they try to find their parents, “It wouldn’t be good for your mother if you tried to find her,” or that they cannot have access to their own records, which would have helped with their identity and sense of worth. All of these injustices build on the initial injustice, and they are not all so historical, either; some of them are much more contemporary. If we are really going to deal with this, we have to recognise that with our eyes wide open.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for his very careful and softly spoken words and for the apology. An apology, while vital for healing, is only a first step; it must be followed by tangible, compassionate action. We owe the survivors nothing less than the total truth and structural redress, as well as our compassion for a lifetime of sometimes feeling unloved and unwanted, when that could not be further from the truth. We cannot give their years or their relationships back, but we can be honest and step up. What concrete steps are being taken to guarantee streamlined, free access to original birth records? What co operation is there with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that survivors across the entirety of the United Kingdom can and will receive the same standard of tracing services and therapeutic support?
The hon. Member is absolutely right: there has to be tangible action, and it has to be streamlined, as he described. We need to work with the devolved Administrations. What we cannot do now is add a further injustice to all the injustices we have been describing, by doing anything that makes it harder from hereon in for people to get the support and information they need. We need to action what we are saying today, and we will do so.
Rosemundy mother and baby home, a Church of England affiliated institution in St Agnes in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, was a key institution in this scandal. The shame and pain has lived with these families for decades, and many have since taken this pain to their graves. As the Member of Parliament for St Agnes, I warmly welcome and echo the Prime Minister’s national apology and what he said about lessons being learned, so that we can at least try to relieve a tiny fraction of that pain. Does he agree that we simply would not be here today without the tireless and extraordinary efforts of the campaigners?
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank him for highlighting the example in his constituency. I suspect there are other examples in all constituencies. We would not be here today without the hard work of the campaigners. Let us be blunt and honest about that. Their work was not heeded quickly enough, in my view. I am glad that we have got to this day; it is an important day for them, but it is also an important day for us, because we need to recognise that this is about the state—how the state responds and how the state acts. It is important for all of us.
I thank the Prime Minister for coming here with this heartfelt apology. I also thank all the campaigners for being here today and for the evidence they gave to the Education Committee. I was proud to be on the Committee when we reopened this inquiry. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her work, and to the Ministers. We heard compelling evidence from mothers whose babies were so cruelly ripped away from them, as many have described, and from those who were adopted—I see Sally in the Gallery; she spoke about a feeling of not belonging. Does the Prime Minister agree that supporting the victims of this terrible injustice is about supporting not just the mothers, but the babies, now adults, who were adopted?
I know the testimony was really powerful, and I thank the Select Committee again for its work. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to see and hear everyone who was affected—the mothers, the now adults who were adopted, but beyond that the extended families and siblings, and those who, sadly, passed before we reached today. If we are going to hear, if we are going to see, we have to hear and see everyone who has been affected by this, not just some of them.
I thank the Prime Minister for this long awaited and long overdue heartfelt apology on behalf of the state. As the mother of an 18-year old daughter, as each day takes me further from the day I gave birth to her, I hold on more fiercely to the precious memory of her entering this world. I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on the mothers whose babies were ripped away from them. I imagine that they, too, have clear memories that never fade, but instead become even sharper as time goes by. I am in awe of their strength. I am so sorry that they experienced such pain. I thank the Prime Minister for making it clear that the shame sits with the Churches and charities, the healthcare system and the state, not with the survivors. I hope that today goes some way to help families that were torn apart to heal as best they can.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the pain is felt every single day and carried by those affected, and we recognise that. I recognise also that today does not change that. Let us not pretend that all the pain is taken away by this apology; it is not. It provides a degree of justice and acknowledgment by the state, but I am in no doubt that those affected will, unfortunately, have to continue to carry that pain. We will simply do all we can to support them throughout, but nothing can ever lift the pain. We will do all we can to build on the apology given today.
I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere apology to those who experienced this historical forced adoption scandal, and I pay tribute to those in the Gallery today and those who cannot be here. He has talked a lot about those who need to be heard but who may not have been heard, so my question is about constituents of mine, and of other hon. Members, who may not have had the courage to come forward or who are not sure whether they were adopted or were otherwise affected. How can we give them the courage to come forward and know that they will be listened to and heard, and that they will be able to access some of the support services that the Prime Minister has announced?
I hope the apology helps those who have not felt able to talk about this to come forward. On one level, it is a matter of courage, but it is probably more than that. I was struck this morning by the example given to me of trying to read a story in a newspaper about these issues and covering it up, not wanting to be seen in public reading the story, out of a deep sense of shame. I have no doubt that some who have not spoken out feel that they cannot do so, because they cannot break out of that. I hope that today helps them and that making it clear that the shame is ours, and hearing of the courage of those in the Gallery and other campaigners, gives them the ability to come forward. That is important, because if they do, they will find support, and that talking to others who have been affected in the same way will give them a degree of comfort they probably do not have at the moment. It is very difficult for people who have shut these things away to come forward. It will take time, but I hope we have taken one step closer today.
In moments like this, I feel the privilege of serving on both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. The Prime Minister is right to say that it should not have taken two Select Committee reports to get us here today. More important, it should not have taken the victim survivors of this terrible scandal having to retell their stories, retraumatising themselves again and again, to get here. As the JCHR report makes clear, there are some things only a Government can do; for that reason, I thank the Prime Minister from the bottom of my heart for his apology on behalf of the state today, and ask him to set out in a little more detail how he and the Department for Education have worked with survivors to get to the full apology he has given today.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on both Committees. The work to get us here today has been done in conjunction with all those affected, and we will continue to work in that way. That is the right way—the only way—to proceed, and will continue in that vein. There are many challenges still ahead, but if we approach them by hearing and seeing and working with those affected, we have a better chance of meeting those challenges.
I think the Prime Minister for what he said today and the way he said it. I pay tribute to the bravery of all the people who have been involved in getting us here. A constituent who is an adult adoptee came to see me recently; she was born in 1969, so she is three years older than me. She told me that adoptees are four times more likely to try to commit suicide than non adoptees, so I really welcome the support for adult adoptees and others in the form of a health pathway for those affected by forced adoption, including the counselling they will need for post traumatic stress disorder. My constituent also asked me to raise the possibility of marking medical records of adult adoptees, so that those who do not have a family medical history to fall back on can get the screening and support they need.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those really important questions. We will work with her and others to make improvements and put the appropriate support, screening and information in place.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Under Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), prior notice of this point of order. Yesterday, I asked him about Britain’s relationship with Israel in relation to its disgraceful expansion of illegal settlements. I emphasised that they are illegal and made the point that they are supported and facilitated by the Israeli Government. He did not answer my question about Britain’s military co operation; instead, he misrepresented my words and implied that I was somehow or other making a statement about the views of the Jewish people in this country, which I absolutely was not. I seek your advice on how I can ensure the Minister comes back to the House, corrects the record and answers the question that I put to him.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that Ministers themselves are responsible for their words at the Dispatch Box. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concern, and I am sure that they will pass it on to the Minister. He is an experienced Member, and will know that a number of routes are available to him to pursue questions to the Government on this issue. The Clerks in the Table Office can advise him further, if need be.
On a point of order, yesterday in Westminster Hall, the Maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), may have inadvertently misled the House. I confirm that I have given the required notices. The Minister stated on three occasions that a Court of Appeal judgment changed the legal status of maritime coastguard rescue officers. That simply is not true. The Court of Appeal confirmed worker status that already existed and has existed for years; it is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, backed by the Government, that is now seeking to change the status of those brave heroes to that of unpaid volunteers. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how I can seek to get the record corrected?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point and will doubtless communicate it to the Minister, who is in his place, who will be able to consider whether there is anything in his remarks that requires correcting or whether, taken as a whole, they gave an accurate account of the situation.
On a point of order, I seek guidance from your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how to remind Members about the courtesies of the House when undertaking events in other constituencies. I am proud to serve the constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, where there are many wonderful venues that host many fantastic events. When Members, including senior Members, take part in speaking events in another constituency that are not private events, they should notify the sitting Member.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on purely a private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter and failure to follow that guidance is regarded as very discourteous.
Bill Presented Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Matt Turmaine presented a Bill to change the procedure for amending Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 110).
I beg to move, That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Michael Jary CBE to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2027.
The chair of the National Audit Office plays an incredibly important role in our democracy. The role supports Parliament’s scrutiny of Government expenditure and safeguards the independence of the National Audit Office. At a time of continued pressure on public finances and household budgets, delivering value for money across Government is absolutely vital, so it is right that this appointment is made on the basis of merit and commands confidence from Members across the House.
Michael Jary brings extensive experience of leadership, governance and public service. As the Government lead non executive director, he provided independent advice and challenge across Government. His work strengthened the performance of the public institutions that all our constituents rely on. Indeed, his commitment to public sector effectiveness is such that since leaving that role he has led university programmes at home and abroad, challenging others to think about how leaders can deliver for the people they serve.
Alongside his many years of service in public roles, Michael has also supported the work of various charities, including the King’s Foundation and the Fairtrade Foundation. Remarkably, he has still found time to pen four books. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a strong commitment to the values this office requires. I am confident that he has the judgment and experience necessary to fulfil its responsibilities and I commend this motion to the House.
I thank the Prime Minister very much for making this appointment. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the appointments panel, I warmly welcome the motion to appoint Michael Jary CBE as the next chair of the National Audit Office.
Michael Jary brings extensive experience in Government, leadership and organisational transformation, together with independence and judgment, to this important role. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the current chair, Dame Fiona Reynolds, for her distinguished service? The Public Accounts Committee has long benefited from the NAO’s outstanding support and we are grateful for her stewardship. Michael has the skills and the leadership needed to ensure the NAO remains a high performing, innovative and digitally enabled organisation, supporting Parliament’s detailed scrutiny of public spending and helping to secure value for money for taxpayers. For these reasons, I am delighted to support this appointment.
Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Michael Jary CBE to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2027.
Before we come to the debate on commonhold and leasehold reform, I inform that House that permission to appeal has been granted following the judgment on the judicial review brought forward by ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund and others over the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The case is therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has granted a waiver to allow Members to discuss fully the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on the implications of the Government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I call Florence Eshalomi, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Very quickly.
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?
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.
We will start with an immediate four minute time limit.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her opening remarks, and on the work her Committee has done to produce its report. It was an exceptional read—I thank her and her Committee.
I am seeing increasing numbers of cases where leaseholders experience a range of problems, including high service and administration charges, a lack of transparency, overcharging, disproportionate costs to extend leases or buy freeholds, poor actions by managing agents, a slow and costly sales process, and imbalanced dispute mechanisms with leaseholders potentially liable for the freeholder’s legal costs. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the retirement village up in Ben Rhydding in my constituency.
For the past year, I have been working with the Clevedon owners group, who have experienced real life examples of how the current leasehold framework governing the integrated retirement sector falls well short of the standard that should be expected. The Clevedon owners group is made up of a group of leaseholders at the Audley Clevedon retirement village in Ben Rhydding. They have experienced repeated failures by their landlord to fulfil some of the most fundamental obligations contained within their leases, while the landlord continues to collect substantial service charges. The owners group estimates that the Audley Group collects approximately £30 million of annual service charges a year across its whole estate, with £3.5 million of deferred service charges, yet its residences are falling into disrepair and the freeholder is not updating its commitments or undertaking its responsibilities.
The owners group has highlighted to me that its biggest concern is around the legal definition of the service charge and, crucially, whether certain mandatory payments in retirement leases fall within the statutory definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The experiences of those residents in the Audley retirement village demonstrate exactly why this seemingly technical issue has profound and real consequences. Leaseholders have paid substantial monthly management charges and deferred management charges on the understanding that the funds would maintain their homes, safeguard communal facilities and ensure the long term sustainability of their residential community. It is clear from the meetings that I have had with my constituents that that simply is not the case. Instead, their properties have gone unserviced, which presents serious questions about how the annual service charge and those funds are being used. Following years of expansion, heavy borrowing and financial difficulties, maintenance across the Audley Clevedon retirement village has reportedly declined significantly, despite leaseholders continuing to pay increased service charges. That needs to change, and I respect some of the recommendations in the report on that point.
Does the Minister have any intention of commissioning an independent forensic audit of major retirement community operators to examine corporate governance, financial arrangements, service charge accounting, deferred management charges and compliance with lease obligations? Can he confirm that leaseholders in retirement housing, including integrated retirement communities, will not be excluded from the protections of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? The current legal framework has failed to keep pace with increasingly complex corporate structures. If confidence in retirement housing is to be restored, residents must be given the protection, transparency and accountability that they rightly expect.
Trust in politics is at an all time low, and part of the reason is that our society is littered with examples of structural unfairness, injustice, and ordinary people being ever so slightly fleeced. The housing market of recent years is a strong case in point, with multiplying ground rents, abuse of the forfeiture system, opaque service charges, management companies that cannot be changed, overpriced maintenance performed by firms connected to the management company, no adoption of common assets, short leases and exorbitant lease extension fees—the list goes on.
It has been a privilege to have played my part in scrutinising the draft Bill, because it represents an opportunity to put a significant dent in some of these practices, and to demonstrate that politics and politicians can deliver for people and change lives for the better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has set out, the Committee took evidence from an extensive array of witnesses on the measures in the Bill, and I thank them for their contributions.
I will draw out a few specific points from our report. First, the reinvigoration of commonhold that this Bill will deliver has rightly been described not just as an alternative to leasehold, but as a radical improvement on it. For it to be implemented successfully, considerable work needs to be undertaken at the Land Registry to make sure that it is ready to respond, not just to the registration of new commonhold, but to the conversion of existing leases. Our Committee found that a failure to modernise the Land Registry’s legacy systems would pose a significant risk to commonhold working. Good quality public access systems will be crucial.
My second point is on the ground rent cap. It is fair to say that the Committee spent a lot of our time attempting to get to the bottom of the Government’s rationale for their proposals. I support the proposal to adopt a flat cap of £250, rather than the cap being a percentage of property value. However, I have struggled to understand the rationale behind waiting 40 years before converting to peppercorn rent. I can understand the desire to give certainty and predictability to investors, and I can understand an argument that investors need time to adapt to such changes, but the last three successive Governments were elected on a mandate to address onerous ground rents. The ground rent system, as my hon. Friend said, was condemned by the Competition and Markets Authority, which said that it could find “no persuasive evidence that ground rent was either legally or commercially necessary, or that consumers received anything in return”.
It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that the days of ground rent are numbered. I cannot think of a single other example of a Government being so generous as to provide 40 years’ notice of a change to terms of business. Governments have not done that for students on plan 2 loans, for example, or for those affected by the rising pension age. The previous Government thought 20 years’ notice was sufficient, and I am minded to agree with them, unless the Department can bring forward more evidence on its rationale.
My final point is on the absence from the Bill of measures to regulate property management agents. Everyone in the House knows that that change is long overdue. We have Lord Best in the Gallery today. His excellent 2019 report set out the case for regulation clearly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), following his work on his private Member’s Bill. I understand the concern about the size of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as it stands, and that adding these measures would create further delay. All I say in response is that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to act. No time has been set aside in the King’s Speech for a separate regulation of property agents Bill, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity in front of him, and chip away at another practice that blights the lives of our constituents and undermines trust in institutions’ ability to deliver for them.
Leasehold is a con. We are one of the few countries that still has residential leasehold, and because of that, people are being sold a lie on home ownership. As Woking’s MP, I hear countless stories about it, and I will not use my time going through every single one, but I impress this point on the Government: we need to regulate these bureaucratic con artists. People have been scammed out of home ownership in place of leasehold. It is fleecehold. Dreams of home ownership have stayed dreams—far out of reach, and fast becoming nightmares. We hear far too often of leaseholders who have been distressed by poor service. These bad actors hide behind paperwork and avoid responsibility. Major firms such as FirstPort have, for far too long, been allowed to deliver an appalling service without consequences.
The new leasehold reform Bill must put in place a regulator with the teeth to sanction these rogue agents with meaningful penalties. When that happens, MPs can end the wild west of property management agents. To see why leasehold reform is so urgent, we need only look at how managing agents such as FirstPort treat leaseholders. I had a situation involving a retirement development in Woking. It should be a lovely place to live that gives peace of mind to vulnerable, elderly residents, but when people fell over, the safety systems that FirstPort put in place did not work. Elderly residents were left lying on the floor, having called for help. FirstPort should have fixed that, and it did not. People were left in those distressing situations, but because of the lack of regulation, we cannot hold those responsible accountable.
FirstPort also managed the Clock Tower building in Maybury. It has spent years causing misery to leaseholders, because of the failure to deliver minimum levels of service, and people are trapped. I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about that case. Leaseholders have few rights, and cannot sell their homes or control who manages the development. The leaseholders of Bramwell Place, another development in Woking, know those problems all too well. They are trapped in their homes, due to frequent stalling and lack of communication. The developer completed the necessary fire safety investigation a year ago, but refused to release critical reports, burying them in an internal review. Lenders have denied the people in those homes mortgages, buyers are walking away, and innocent residents are left struggling.
I am on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I have been proud to work on its report that pushes the Government to go further, faster. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership, and our Committee Clerks for their excellent support. I hope the Government listen to our cross party calls today. We recommended significant changes to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but does not deliver what we want. It is mind boggling that the Bill does not deliver on the promises in the Labour manifesto. We recommended that the Bill deliver an independent regulator to end the wild west of property management agents. If we do that, FirstPort and others will not get away with the appalling treatment that my constituents and others face.
It is heartbreaking that so many people in Woking and across the country have worked hard to get on the property ladder, but have seen their home ownership dream turn into a nightmare. Successive Governments have failed to tackle ground rents and leasehold reform. We want to put homeowners in control of the management of their buildings. I urge the Minister to implement the Select Committee report in full. Let us leave a lasting legacy on leasehold reform.
I want to get on record what has happened in my constituency, because I said to my constituents that I would. With the expansion of Heathrow airport, land prices have gone up. Manufacturers have moved to cheaper areas, often with grants, and in the former manufacturing areas, a large number of flats have been built. I would normally welcome that, but the prices of those flats are prohibitive for local people. However, a large number of young people—bless them—have done everything they can to raise the £300,000 or £350,000 needed to buy one of those small flats. They have new homes, and we have welcomed them into the community, but we are now getting a flood of constituents coming to see us because the increase in service charges has pushed them over the edge.
In response to surveys, young people have explained in heartfelt terms, “We’ve not had a family because we can’t afford a family.” Some of them have tried to sell on, but some got a grant to buy their flat and have to pay it back, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. They say to me, “Here are the service charges, and this is what we get.” The service is absolutely appalling. We have had numerous examples of that. I understand the call for regulation and a regulator, and I agree with them, but the best form of regulation is to give ownership to the people living in the properties. My simple message to the Government is: please deliver the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations on enfranchising people to manage.
Another issue that has come up time and again is developmental value. This is an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has been campaigning since the early 2000s. It is ludicrous that people have to pay up front for a development that might never happen, and that might be costed by the freeholder. That prevents people from buying or selling on. The Law Commission has made a key recommendation on this point, and I urge the Government to act on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned that the threshold for participation in a move to commonhold is set at 50%. In other areas, that does not apply; for example, the threshold for tenant management organisations is 20%. We are now removing such onerous criteria from employment rights legislation, because they prevent participation. In areas like mine, a lot of properties are owned by overseas landlords, and it is very difficult to get them to participate in any way. The request is that we move the threshold to 35%; that is reasonable and manageable.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that 40 years is too long to wait before changing the situation regarding ground rent. We will have the WASPI women banging on our door soon, won’t we? I know of no other issue on which there has been a 40-year notification period. The recommendation is to get it down to 20 years. I would get rid of ground rent now, because I think it is wealth extraction in return for no service whatsoever.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposals for ensuring that lease extensions and freehold acquisitions are cheaper overall. Ultimately, they will benefit a large number of our constituents, but they need to be implemented as rapidly as possible, which is why I welcome the Bill. I hope that the new regime allows us to get this legislation through as fast as possible.
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing today’s important debate. I want to use the brief time I have to share two examples from my constituency of systemic mismanagement of managed property.
The first example that I will cite is a FirstPort managed property—we have heard that name mentioned already—called Bentley Court in Camberley’s town centre. On 19 March, the building’s only lift broke down. For most of us, that would be a frustration, but for the retirement community who live in that building, it has been life changing. These are older people, often with significant mobility issues. That lift is not just a convenience; it is their access point to and from their property. It is their independence. Residents tell me that they have not been able to go shopping and have missed hospital appointments. Some cannot take out their rubbish, and others have become trapped in their home for days at a time.
That brings me to the case of Audrey West, one of my constituents. She lived at Bentley Court for more than 26 years. She suffered from heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and had serious mobility problems. She became a prisoner in her own home when that lift broke down, and her health and wellbeing deteriorated. When she attempted to tackle the stairs, the physical exertion caused enormous strain on her body, leaving her breathless and exhausted. That was only compounded by the recent heatwave. In order to secure her safety, her family concluded that the only thing they could do was remove her from her home of 26 years. On 28 June, just days after leaving her home, Audrey’s family contacted FirstPort again, copying in my office, to inform the company and me that Audrey had died. I am not here to claim that a broken lift directly caused Audrey’s death, but I am willing to say this: no vulnerable resident should ever be left feeling abandoned and trapped in their home. The lift remains unrepaired and unrepairable, with no end to the situation in sight.
My second example is Mytchett Heath, a not for profit retirement community managed by Cognatum Estates. MPs from across the House have constituents who are affected. Again, older residents are feeling completely ignored, and now maligned, by the company that should be looking after them—residents who have invested their life savings in a home, but who have no voice when it comes to how their property is managed. Last month, I met a group of Cognatum residents here in Parliament. One described Cognatum as “the worst commercial organisation I have dealt with in a long professional career”, and nobody in the room looked surprised at that.
Residents described soaring service charges, complaints that went nowhere, a regulator—the Association of Retirement Housing Managers—that they do not believe is independent, and a tribunal process that is so expensive. Lease terms can allow the managing company to recover legal costs from residents, who simply give up trying to engage with the process. Residents spoke about residents’ forums disappearing, and about having to renegotiate electricity contracts on behalf of the management company, because it was incapable of doing so itself. The most extraordinary thing that we heard was that Cognatum has refused to allow defibrillators in a retirement community, because it is fearful that members of the public might seek to access those defibrillators from outside the estate.
I will conclude in just a few seconds, if you will allow me that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister—
Order. There is a very strict time limit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this debate, and for all the work that she has done on this issue. I see that Lord Best is in the Gallery; he, among many others, has been campaigning on these issues for years.
I rise to draw attention to the experiences of some leaseholders in my constituency. I have previously spoken at length in the Chamber about unadopted estates. I am not going to dwell on that subject today, because it is not discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, but I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention, as it is a major issue in my constituency.
To turn to the specific problems we have, the draft legislation, as it stands, is fantastic. The proposal to cap ground rents will be absolutely life changing for people in my constituency who have contacted me and talked about how ground rents are going up to double what they were and about the difficulties they are consistently having with the fact that there appears to be no real ability to hold a managing agent to account.
The specifics I want to talk about are from a case I have been working on with the homeowners—well, the leaseholders—for some time, in which FirstPort, yet again, is the managing agent. Having finally managed to dislodge FirstPort as the managing agent, the residents have been told by the new managing agent that of the £40,000 reserve they believed was available to them, there is none—nothing. FirstPort has not explained where that money has gone or what it has been spent on, and this has been the outstanding position for well over six months. A sum of £40,000 is a lot of money to just vanish, and we would think that an organisation would be able to point to what it had been spent on pretty readily, if it was keeping accounts in any normal fashion. That is one of a succession of difficulties that these leaseholders have had with FirstPort, and this has been going on for years and years.
I understand that the Government have concerns that the draft legislation is already exceptionally long, and as a lawyer, I have a huge amount of sympathy for that, but I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and the members of her Select Committee that we must do something, in line with Lord Best’s previous recommendations, about the regulation of managing agents. We have been talking about this topic in this House for as long as I have been an MP, and clearly significantly longer than that. If these organisations were capable of self regulation and if educating people who worked in them was sufficient to solve this problem, it would have been solved a long time ago. No one wants regulation for the sake of it, but the only way there will be accountability for vast amounts of individuals’ money that appears to simply vanish into the ether is if we put regulation in place. I thank the Minister.
I commend the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate, and for her continued strong and effective leadership of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
I have spoken several times in this House about the problems with the current leasehold and property management system, more recently from the Opposition Front Bench. Like so many of my constituents and people across the country, I am a leaseholder and I know at first hand the horrific situation they face. However, in today’s debate I would like to focus on property management companies, which are bringing misery to the lives of both leaseholders and those living on freehold estates in so called fleecehold properties.
Apart from the law as it currently stands, it is the poor performance and, quite frankly, the total incompetence of companies such as the Residential Management Group and FirstPort that are at the root of so many of the issues facing leaseholders across the country. Since my election, I have not come across one property management company that residents are happy with. Whether it is High Leigh in Hoddesdon, Academia Avenue, Robinia Road and Watery Lane in Turnford, Aldermere Avenue and Magnolia Way in Flamstead End, or Eleanor House in Waltham Cross, it is hard to think of one part of Broxbourne that is not affected.
The Minister, with whom I get on well, has promised to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, but how much longer will my constituents have to wait? His Department has already held a consultation on measures to help leaseholders challenge unfair fees and charges, and introduce qualifications for managing agents. In fact, the consultation opened nearly one year ago and closed in September 2025, and the Government are still analysing the feedback. That is what the people out there get fed up with. The Leasehold and Freehold Act 2024 is on the statute book and the present Government clearly want stronger regulation of managing agents, as that is what they have told this House, so why the delay? We need to get this sorted.
I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and allowed my Committee to scrutinise it in its draft form. That is a positive sign that the Government want to get the right legislation in place for our constituents, but I feel they should commit to giving more powers to the Department, so that Ministers can hold managing agents to account, specifically with enforcement powers. Managing agents that break the rules should be fined, and ultimately stripped of their licence to operate. This means that management companies would have to start to care about the interests of the residents they are supposed to look out for.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, we have had to put up with poor service charges and increasing bills for years. Residents have nowhere to turn when something goes wrong. They feel that managing agents have all the power. I know the Minister wants to change that, and I hope he will reflect carefully on what has been said across the House. I urge the Government to get a move on, and solve this issue for millions of people across the United Kingdom.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the members of her Committee for their excellent pre legislative scrutiny work, which we have heard about today.
Since becoming an MP, one of the most common issues I hear from my constituents is the poor quality of service provided by managing agents to local leaseholders. When the boilers broke at Walsham Court and Hinds Court last November, residents tried to contact Anthem, but to no avail, and they were left without water for four weeks. Middlesex House residents were left without water for days, without extra support and supplies, until my office intervened. At Armstrong House, FirstPort has let the quality of communal areas deteriorate to a shockingly poor extent. I could go on for hours, but I have only three minutes to go. As Members have said, there are countless examples of service failure from managing agents.
I welcome the Minister’s actions to date, and the proposals in the draft Bill to cap exploitative ground rents, which will save thousands of pounds over the lifetime of leases, pushing for service charge reform and transparency, and pushing for commonhold as the default form of tenure. These are long overdue changes. However, having seen these cases at first hand, I know that more is needed. My ten minute rule Bill in the last Session proposed the establishment of an independent regulator of managing agents, modelled on the excellent recommendations of Lord Best’s 2019 report. I understand that the Government are willing to move on mandatory qualifications for managing agents—again, that is welcome —but I am concerned that, without an independent regulator to enforce codes of conduct and ensure we can reap the benefits of those qualifications, that will be of little benefit to many leaseholders. Furthermore, without a dedicated regulator, the burden of enforcement will continue to fall on individual leaseholders—and, in future, commonholders—to take up lengthy and expensive legal action to hold their managing agents to account.
Three key benefits show why a managing agent regulator is desirable. First, good regulation is good for markets, and I think this will help growth, not hinder it. There are significant costs and financial waste in the current system, and the leasehold brand has been exceptionally damaged by the poor behaviour of managing agents. A regulator has the chance to restore confidence in leasehold and commonhold in the future. Secondly, introducing a regulator for managing agents would help ensure the success of the commonhold tenure. The need for managing agents will not go away with the introduction of commonhold. Thirdly, introducing a regulator for managing agents is strongly supported by those in the system, the customer—the leaseholder—and also the provider of services themselves.
As the Chair of the Select Committee has mentioned, leaseholders overwhelmingly responded to the survey that they want to see this change, and the Property Institute, RICS and even the managing directors of FirstPort and Rendall & Rittner are all supportive of the need for more effective regulation and a regulator of managing agents. Those in the industry understand that there is nothing to gain from the poor behaviour of some undermining the good behaviour of many more.
Yes, we need to take forward the existing important proposals in the draft Bill, but the time for the regulation of managing agents is now—in this Bill. It is vital that something is done and is clearly seen to be done before the next election for existing leaseholders struggling day in and day out with rogue managing agents. The establishment of a regulator would be a clear signal to existing leaseholders that we are serious about protecting them, as well as a signal to the property and construction sectors that this Government are focused on restoring stability to the housing market and, crucially, calling time on the poor practice of rogue managing agents, which are far too common in our system, finally fulfilling the promise of ending fleecehold for good.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose motion, report and recommendations for the Bill I support and welcome. Thorough and fair leasehold reform is long overdue. My inbox as MP for Brighton Pavilion is littered with horror stories from constituents about their experiences as leaseholders who are forced to fork out extortionate service charges with no value for money, poor maintenance and no transparency on how that money is spent, as well as awful communications. My leaseholders continue to suffer from a lack of agency in solving the building safety scandal, which has left too many leaseholders in Brighton’s many high rise and mid rise blocks stuck in unsafe homes.
Some of my constituents tell me that they believe freeholders are still trying to cut corners and do this work on the cheap. Just last month I was contacted by multiple constituents about developer Barratt Redrow’s plans to remediate their blocks, built in the early 2000s, to a B1 standard, rather than to an A2 standard as they had understood would happen. This type of dispute, nine years on from the avoidable Grenfell disaster, is commonplace, and it is so worrying for too many of my constituents.
I, too, want to talk about property management agents. A large number of leaseholders in Brighton and Hove are in a nightmare situation right now of not being able to access money paid into accounts managed by just one large property management company in sudden crisis. Under current leasehold regulations, when a managing agent’s client accounts are frozen, or irregularities are identified that suggest mismanagement of accounts, leaseholders are left exposed to very big financial losses.
In the private rented sector, there is a Government backed tenancy guarantee scheme, but for leaseholders there is no equivalent guarantee on service charge accounts and reserve funds. Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does require property management companies to hold service charge contributions in trust and with a financial institution authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Yet the flexibility of how leaseholder money is held in reality means that the sums of money in property management company accounts may far exceed the maximum amounts guaranteed under the financial services compensation scheme. Section 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adds a requirement for managing agents to hold service charge funds in designated separate accounts, but it is not yet in force. This lack of enactment seems to leave wide open the potential for managing agents to hold leaseholder money in a way that falls outside of compensation schemes. It cannot be right that leaseholders are left exposed to risk in that way.
To conclude, there is no doubt that the feudal leasehold system is broken and must be abolished in favour of commonhold. The regulation of managing agents to end their exploitation is very, very urgent. The promises that the Government made in opposition, to end the system within the first 100 days, were missed long ago, but we need full reform now, without delay, to ensure an end to leaseholders being ripped off, living in unsafe homes or being exposed to avoidable financial risk and losses.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this incredibly important debate.
This issue is the reason I got into politics in the first place. My first community activism was with my fellow neighbours against an unscrupulous developer up in Newcastle. What I learnt from that is that when people are trapped in their own homes by systems which have been designed to extract money from them rather than serve them, they need a Government who are on their side. For too long leaseholders have not had that at all. I am so glad that this Government have taken strong steps already on commonhold and leasehold. There is so much that does need to change.
In the past, as many hon. Members have spoken about today, leasehold has been used as a system that has allowed developers to treat homeowners as a revenue stream: escalating service charges with no breakdown; poor maintenance resulting in unsafe parks; problems with footpaths and dying trees; and to make matters even worse and more insulting, really poor communication from managing agents, which makes it difficult to get your voice heard or your complaint addressed.
On local estates such as Marston Grange, Sancerre Grange and Sheridan Grange, I have worked to help residents register and build residents’ associations, and to raise their cases with managing agents so that they get better maintenance. Working together, we have had some genuinely great results, but for residents on new build estates it should not depend on how active or vocal their local MP is; it should be written into law. I urge the Government to ensure that property managing agents are sufficiently regulated.
I will give the House a couple of examples from my constituency. At my coffee morning last week, a case from Gateway Avenue in Baldwin’s Gate was raised. At their AGM, the residents wanted to form a management company, but they were blocked, and one is being imposed on them against their wishes. On St George’s Estate in Stafford, residents have reported that “it genuinely feels like the managing agent is stealing money from us”
to the tune of £600 to £1,000 per leaseholder. Their charges have trebled. They now have to pay £2,500 to change the rent review period on their lease to be able to remortgage or sell. As a system, that is deeply unfair. At Deanspark Court, a retirement complex—other hon. Members have spoken about this—residents who own their own flats describe management charges as “extortionate”. The company refuses to engage meaningfully. At Adlington Brooklands House in Stafford, a constituent’s ground rent has risen year on year and now stands at almost £2,000, which is nearly six times the national average. I could go on—and on, and on, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I think I have made my point clear.
The Government have taken bold and decisive steps already in capping ground rents, abolishing forfeiture and making commonhold the default for new flats. Those are really significant reforms, but the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has called the absence of independent regulation of property managing agents a “significant shortcoming”. Every one of my constituents would agree with that.
As far back as 2019, Lord Best recommended an independent regulator with the powers to fine agents and revoke licences. It is now 2026. The case for that has been made consistently, and delivering it would be a tremendous contribution by this Labour Government.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also give some comfort to my poor residents on both Ribblesdale Avenue in Accrington and Lyndon Park estate in Great Harwood, who are currently faced with the impending truth that FirstPort will shortly be their managing agent? They are rightly terrified about what that might mean for them and what expense it might add, as well as the failure of such organisations to manage local parks and so on. Taking the steps that she mentions will help give my residents confidence that they will have the protections they deserve.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Given FirstPort’s record and the number of times that FirstPort has been called to Parliament—it has been called to speak before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the “Labour for Leaseholders” group, which has worked really hard—it is an abomination that it is still getting contracts, to be honest. As someone who used to award contracts in my previous career, I think it is mad when previous behaviour is not taken into account when giving out contracts, and FirstPort is a case in point—absolutely atrocious behaviour.
Learning from my own experiences, I am helping constituents on estates across the constituency, as I am sure many hon. Members are, to form residents associations to fight back, but I think we are beyond that. We should not need to be fighting back any more; we should have the regulation in place to protect us.
I very much welcome, as I am sure do most of colleagues on the Labour Benches, the Government’s actions so far on commonhold and leasehold, and I look forward to their further steps. Today, I would like to speak to the issue of property management agents, particularly in the context of unadopted estates.
As with so many issues, the fundamental problem here is a lack of housing. Despite the enormous actions taken by this Government to get the housing market moving, the reality is that housing delivery collapsed in the wake of the 1984 housing legislation. Anyone who looks at a graph of housing delivery since that point can see that the mass exit of the state from the direct delivery of housing has never come close to being replaced by the private sector. That is one reason why I was very excited this week to see the Secretary of State’s comments on the potential mass re entry of this Government into housing delivery. It is one of the very few things that could resolve the issue, because we have a broken market.
People are forced to accept unreasonable housing conditions because they have no choice. Until we resolve the broken market, we will continue to have various forms of exploitation. The reality is that developers—there are good developers and bad developers—will, overwhelmingly, seek to minimise their costs as far as possible, whatever the impact on the communities they are creating. If we allow poor practices to be possible within the law, we will see poor practices being delivered by these people.
We need to be mindful, of course, that regulation has an impact. As someone who has delivered local plans, I can tell hon. Members that I was always very mindful of the requirements I was putting on developers, because I knew that every single requirement was an affordable house being taken out of the system. As legislators, I think we have sometimes been a bit careless with unnecessary additional requirements. We must ensure that regulation is proportionate, but in this case it very much is.
I have been dealing with the issue of unadopted estates for the better part of two decades now, and no worse example exists in my experience than that of Forge Wood. It is part of a new town that has all the services that the neighbourhood principal should deliver for a neighbourhood, but unlike in my other neighbourhoods the residents of Forge Wood are all having to pay for them a second time: once through their council tax and a second time through their management agency, with a fee that rivals the level of district authority council tax. They are paying more for fewer services.
There are questions over the nature of the contracts and the contractors that are brought in. If we look at any of those property management agencies, the company secretaries are registered to hundreds, if not thousands, of such companies. How effective can someone be when they are registered as secretary for thousands of companies? It is frankly little more than fee farming from residents for no benefit. I have gone through the articles of association to try and find ways for residents to wrest back control, but the complexities mean that these people are completely unaccountable. It masquerades as ownership by those communities, while delivering an unaccountable system.
What should we do? The Government’s existing proposals are an improvement, and I welcome the Committee’s recommendation of the independent regulator, which should come into effect. On the issue of unadopted estates, ultimately, we now have to turn off the tap. We need to establish fixed conditions and fees, so that they are all adopted at the point they are completed and handed over to local authorities.
We also need to establish a pathway for existing unadopted estates to be taken on by the state, with a need for local authorities to plan how they bring them in. I believe it is possible to adopt them within the existing system and within financial constraints. However, we cannot do that while running up a flag to tell every developer in the country to ditch their responsibility to get the estates adopted. I am pleased by the recommendations before us, but further action is needed on an independent regulator and on turning off the tap on unadopted estates.
The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost.
We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear.
Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all.
Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six year old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete.
Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong.
Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether.
Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated. That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.
I am glad to be able to contribute to this debate to give voice to a number of my constituents who have been suffering as a result of the feudal leasehold system for far too long. I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for setting out the issues that so many of our constituents face.
The measures outlined in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill mark a significant step towards a fairer and more balanced system of home ownership. I thank the Minister for his work on the Bill; he is alive to the many issues and working hard to deliver on the many pledges in our manifesto that we were elected on.
For generations, the leasehold system has many homeowners paying substantial service charges, ground rents and administration fees, while having little control over the management of the buildings they live in. Too often, leaseholders have found themselves trapped in a system that is expensive, complex and heavily weighted in favour of freeholders.
The issues do not discriminate on size, affecting both small blocks and larger developments. In Luton South and South Bedfordshire, I have constituents living in a small block of 12 flats, Harrowden Court, of which Hastoe Housing Association is the freeholder. They have raised a number of issues with me in recent years relating to Hastoe’s management, including significant communication issues and substantial bills presented to leaseholders with little to no explanation for why they are expected to pay the charges.
Most recently, my constituents were notified by Hastoe of significant service charge increases over the next two financial years—2026-27 and 2027-28—to fund fire safety and external wall remediation works. Tenants’ service charge and sinking fund contributions to cover those costs will rise from around £250 a month to £900 a month. That unaffordable increase has caused considerable shock, stress and anxiety.
Residents are also concerned about a lack of transparency, as Hastoe has not provided estimated total costs, explained how charges are distributed to residents, or evidenced any competitive procurement process for carrying out the works. Such remediation works should be the responsibility of the building developer, and it is extremely unfair that those costs are being passed on to residents.
That is just one example of leaseholders being failed. I have a number of constituents living in Stockwood Gardens, a larger development of 11 blocks managed by MCR Homes, who are facing a similar reality. They are paying increased service charges, year on year, with little to no explanation as to why. Basic services that they were promised, including grass cutting and building maintenance, were provided at a sub par standard or not at all. Many have also reported basic faults with their blocks, such as lights in hallways not working or regular leaks, which have been reported and not fixed, with no clear timetable for repair.
It is clear from those examples alone that there is a significant power imbalance in the current leasehold system, and companies managing those properties essentially have free rein to overcharge residents and underdeliver on services, with little to no transparency or accountability. I note that the HCLG Committee has done extensive scrutiny work on the draft Bill, and its report recommends that the final Bill include “provisions to establish a new, independent public body as the Regulator for property managing agents, with enforcement powers. This must include powers for the Regulator to issue fines or revoke licences of managing agents who breach a statutory Code of Practice”.
I support that recommendation and believe that it is an opportunity to prevent bad practice and drive cultural change within the industry, while affording leaseholders greater protections.
I welcome the legislation, but it cannot be the end of the conversation. Leaseholders’ voices and concerns must continue to be heard if we are to fully address the problems within the leasehold system, and ensure our constituents feel the benefit of the reforms once and for all.
I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute.
As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass.
Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye watering fees.
I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is.
Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo.
The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.
On the point about estate adoption, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get on and implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sewerage to be adopted as part of the public sewer as soon as possible.
Yes, indeed. Residents of an estate in Eastham have been paying for a sewer that they cannot actually locate, which just shows that there is too much ambiguity over what these charges are for.
Finally, local authorities could be given powers to use their resources to bring estates up to an adoptable level and then charge the developers for that work retrospectively. The developers do not want to do it, and we need to find a way of breaking that logjam. These are just some of the measures that, alongside the many welcome reforms from this Government, would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this very important debate, which I know will be of interest to constituents of mine who find themselves victims of fleecehold.
Across the country, too many people are now buying homes on freehold estates and then finding themselves let down by developers and estate management companies that fail to deliver the services they promised. Developers build these estates, sell the homes and then, despite levying management charges, often fail to maintain the essential infrastructure that residents rely on every day, whether that is roads, drainage systems, which we have just heard about, or shared green spaces.
I have seen this at first hand in the experience of residents of Moorside Drive, a development by Gleeson Homes. My constituent Daniel first contacted me in July last year after purchasing his home in October 2024, when he had been assured that the outstanding works would be completed by March 2025. That deadline slipped to the spring, and then the summer; as things stand, residents have yet to receive any meaningful communication about when the work will finally be completed. The problems they are facing are significant: the road serving the estate has deteriorated and remains unfinished; the shared green spaces that were promised as part of the development have still not been delivered; and commitments to enhance and protect biodiversity have yet to be fulfilled.
Communication with residents has also fallen well below an acceptable standard. Daniel tells me that he was given no notice before work began directly outside his family home, and I have heard that traffic management measures were not properly put in place during other works, creating unnecessary disruption and safety concerns. Landscaping, meanwhile, cannot be completed until the roads are finished, and unresolved drainage issues continue to affect a number of residents on the estate.
This is not like being sold a faulty item that can simply be returned to the shop. These are people’s homes—the places where they expect to build their lives, raise their families and feel secure. When developers and management companies fail to honour their commitments, it is residents who are left living with the consequences. That is why reform and regulation is so important. Homeowners deserve transparency, accountability and effective regulation of the companies responsible for managing their estates. As we have heard already this afternoon, homeowners should not have to fight for basic standards of maintenance or chase endlessly for information about works that should have been completed months earlier.
I very much welcome the work of this Labour Government to strengthen the rights of people living on managed estates. These reforms have the potential to deliver greater fairness, improve accountability and ensure that homeowners receive the standards of service they have paid for. People who invest in a home deserve confidence that those responsible for maintaining their communities will fulfil their obligations. It is only right that we continue to strengthen protections for homeowners, and ensure that managing agents and developers are held to account.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for the assiduous work that she has done with her Select Committee.
It is inspiring when we, as Back Benchers, can have genuine influence by bringing the concerns of our constituents to this House of Commons and directly into the minds of Ministers, and when improvements result from that. I can recall my hon. Friend the Housing Minister using his mobile phone to instruct officials from a debate—because he was hearing so many complaints from hon. Members—to call in the CEO of FirstPort.
I want to touch on a couple of examples from my constituency. One constituent, a customer of FirstPort, had their service charge increase from £980 in 2023 to £3,800 in 2026, causing them financial hardship because they had to take out a loan in order to pay the bill. Now they say that their property is unsellable. There was a clear lack of transparency, with repeated requests for service charge accounts allegedly being ignored. Another constituent reported significant concerns about FirstPort property management, highlighting that service charges increased from around £1,000 in 2021 to £3,400 in 2026 for broadly unchanged services. They, again, allege lack of transparency and more. Residents ultimately exercised their right to manage and appointed a new managing agent, which estimates comparable services at around £1,600 per year, suggesting that FirstPort’s charges were unduly high.
I pay tribute to the work of Labour for Leaseholders, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) and for Hendon (David Pinto Duschinsky). We held a mini inquiry and gave evidence to that inquiry. I think it was clear to all hon. Members that there is a captive market and that private companies and others are exploiting people; it may be within the law, but we have seen the behaviour of these companies and we are calling it out. One has to ask why and whose interests are being served—I will simply leave that question there.
In my remaining time, I want to move on to something that started as a negative and ended up as more of a positive. Residents of Eastfield House, a block of flats in Houlton in my constituency managed by Clarion Housing, repeatedly contacted me about problems. I went out to see them. I saw one of the flats, and the various problems with maintenance and lack of transparency—frankly, it was the usual story. It was deeply concerning: I saw the anguish, the stress and the upset of these people, who are having their dignity disrespected and damaged.
I contacted Clarion, which generously attended a meeting that I held with residents a few weeks later, and is taking action. The company has already given a payment to those residents, and it has a single point of contact and an action plan. It is doing what it can to improve the situation. I pay tribute to Clarion; it has shown that things can improve.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was a very good start, and I know that the Government are consulting further. This Government are intervening in failing markets, because if we do not do so, the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, worse, to exploit people.
Does my hon. Friend agree that a proper regulator for the property management sector, far from being anti growth, would be a pro growth measure bringing transparency and good functioning to these incredibly opaque markets that exploit leaseholders and renters?
I entirely agree. As I was saying, the market is failing, and many of the participants in the market will continue to do the bare minimum or, at worst, exploit people. As we have heard from hon. Members, some of those companies and individuals will continue to push the limits of decency, and possibly legality, because there is no accountability. Let us make it as hard as we can for them. Let us protect and empower the people who really count: the leaseholders.
In my remaining seconds, I ask the Minister to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the need to look at the right to manage process. I suggest that the threshold should be reduced to 30% or that a deemed consent process should be brought in so that our residents can take control of poor estate management. We owe it to them; they deserve dignity in the housing that they have purchased.
For 28 of the 29 years that I have been in Parliament, I have campaigned for leasehold reform. I was instrumental in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and on the Bill Committee during the passage of the 2024 Act. I welcome the Select Committee’s report and pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her remarks.
There are 11,000 individual leaseholders in contact with my office. I pay tribute to Jackie George, who is in daily contact with hundreds of them; she is my office manager, and most of what she does with leaseholders is actually in her spare time.
Leasehold reform is about control. It is about passing power and control from the moneyed interests to the people whose homes they affect. To do that, we must enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. For enfranchisement, that means restricting development value. It was promised to Parliament by the last Government in 2021 and it was meant to be in the 2024 Act. It is just wrong that leaseholders can be held to ransom by hypothetical development value, with developers claiming that they could build in the garden or on top of the building and demanding huge extra sums to stop leaseholders from affording the freehold purchase. Nicola Muir, a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, has wryly observed “it is amazing what development landlords believe is possible and the profits they claim they will generate”.
She cited one instance where the landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of a block.
Today, the right to manage is a shadow of what the Labour Government legislated for in the 2002 Act. Freeholders can punish leaseholders who have taken back control of their blocks with the right to manage because of the Supreme Court decision in 2022—the Settlers Court decision—which went against the intention of Parliament by allowing freeholders to retain control of estate charges. We need to revert to the pre Settlers Court position; the Law Commission’s remaining right to manage recommendations would help to achieve that.
An entire legal industry has emerged in torpedoing right to manage claims for freeholders, where tiny procedural details can see leaseholders spending literally a fortune to defend their right to manage in tribunal and the courts, only to lose the claim. The tribunal has no power to waive errors made over the procedural traps, yet the reforms to change this—the remaining Law Commission right to manage recommendations that would end frivolous lawfare of freeholders and make right to manage a universal scheme—have been omitted from the Bill, despite previous promises.
I am conscious that the scale of the leasehold crisis has become much worse since the Law Commission issued its final report six years ago. There are quick win policies that could still be added to the Bill, such as reducing the arbitrary 50% trigger for right to manage claims—as many hon. Members have already said—to 30% or 35%. Just imagine if we had a law that that said a bad Government could be removed only if 50% of all citizens with the franchise, and not just those who actually voted in an election, had to support the proposition. That is the situation with leasehold. If the right to manage is a no fault right—
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. Leasehold has become the ultimate con. Given the sheer quantity of leaseholder issues and complaints about the behaviour of property managing agents that my team and I come across weekly, some would think that we would be experts in this area, but no two cases are the same, and each case is more complicated than the last.
The system of leasehold is far too complicated. Whether we are looking at EWS1 forms, cladding, major works or service charge transparency, leasehold involves a number of different parties, each with their own interests, and the vast majority of cases end with all avenues being exhausted and the constituent having to seek legal advice, but not everyone has the time to go back and forth with their MP, raise internal complaints through every mechanism, and then complain to the ombudsman, and not everyone has the time and resources to seek legal support for their case. Thousands of leaseholders are encountering these issues, and they are completely locked out from accessing support. Past legislation to improve leaseholder rights seems to have added an extra layer of complexity, so any new legislation must simplify the system, not further complicate matters.
I have a specific concern about leaseholders in housing association buildings. While recent legislation has improved leaseholders’ rights in privately owned blocks, housing association freeholders have often fallen outside the scope of reforms. Housing associations must be specifically addressed in future legislation.
I turn to the unregulated headache that is managing agents. There absolutely needs to be a mechanism of oversight and enforcement, so I welcome the recommendation from an independent regulator, but that regulator needs not just teeth but claws. It needs to be able to fine managing agents, remove their licence, and prosecute repeat offenders who we know are gaming the system.
I cannot tell the House how many cases I deal with in which a constituent is just trying to get a response from their property managing agent. Frustrated leaseholders are paying ever increasing service charges, and it is simply not right that they are struggling to even get a basic response. Charges climb year on year, but transparency does not climb with them. When my constituents ask for a proper breakdown of what they are paying for, too often they get vague figures, unanswered emails or silence. Lifts are broken, stairwells are unsafe, and communal areas never get cleaned, but still the bill arrives, unchanged and unexplained. Leaseholders have no real power to challenge what they are being charged for—and heaven forbid they refuse to pay their service charge, because then the communication they once begged for comes swiftly, in the form of threatening letters claiming the money.
This would not be tolerated anywhere else. Ofgem, which is not always that great, ordered E.ON Energy to pay £5 million, after customers were left waiting on hold for 18 minutes on average, and half their calls were never even getting through. It fined Maxen Power £1.65 million for poor communication and mishandled accounts. Just this January, a landlord in Harrow was prosecuted and fined £9,000 for failing to provide fire and electrical safety certificates, and a landlord who fails to carry out an annual gas safety check can face an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison. In every one of those cases, Parliament has decided that taking someone’s money and failing to deliver is not just providing a bad service, but carries real consequences. Management agents can take thousands of pounds a year from leaseholders, deliver next to nothing, and walk away with a strongly worded letter. We do not accept that anywhere else in housing law, and we cannot keep accepting it here. An independent regulator must do what was not possible in the past, which is remove the licences, fine the managing agents and, as I say, prosecute where necessary, because what these organisations have been doing is absolutely criminal.
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on this issue. I also thank the whole Committee and the experts who testified. I would like to speak in favour of the Government’s proposals, and will briefly describe the situation in my constituency and the wild west of management agents, as described by my hon. Friend.
Too many of my residents face deep frustration, even anger, because of the actions of these companies. In many cases, people have worked extremely hard to get a foot on the housing ladder. They bought an attractive flat in what they thought was a nice development, only to be let down extremely badly by these companies, who treat them in an appalling way, offer a very poor service, and charge high costs.
I will mention two case studies. The first is an attractive development in west Reading, for which Remus is the managing agent. It is near to a large Tesco and some parks. It is an attractive redevelopment of a hospital site, with low and medium rise brick buildings that fit the built environment. Many young families live there. It should be a pleasant place to live. However, there are problems with antisocial behaviour, and Remus has persistently failed to respond to very reasonable inquiries and requests by residents. For example, it has failed for months to repair the shutters on the entrance to a car park, and has allowing antisocial behaviour to creep into the car park under residents’ properties. It also failed to restore hot water, which was unavailable in some of the flats.
There has been a whole series of other problems. For example, Remus expected residents to pay for the upkeep and closure of a park in which there was some antisocial behaviour. There are related issues involving other management companies, such as parking problems on some roads. This is all causing extreme stress for residents in the area. I had a public meeting with a number of residents recently, and they explained that very clearly to me. Rightly, residents are outraged by the behaviour of these companies.
The potential for reform is very clear, as my hon. Friend and others pointed out. In one of the blocks in the area, residents have gone through the extremely lengthy process of getting commonhold. That has led to a 50% reduction in the fees that the residents have to pay. That is a very clear indication of both the necessity of reform and the difficulties that some face in achieving it.
I realise that time is pressing, so I will try to pool together several other case studies, from Reading town centre and other parts of our town, relating to failures by FirstPort, Moreland Estate and other management companies. Companies have allowed antisocial behaviour to take place in stairwells, which leaves residents intimidated, and have had a poor response to fire and remediation issues. This is some years after the Grenfell disaster. There is also a series of other difficult problems.
Again and again, residents are being put under pressure. In one case, a resident rightly used the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to demand a breakdown of the payments that they were due to be charged, but the managing agent did not respond by the statutory deadline. That is the level of poor service that some of my residents and colleagues’ residents face. I urge the Minister to continue taking action on this important matter.
I congratulate the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on securing this important debate. The issues raised in her Committee’s recent report speak strongly to the experiences of thousands of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse, which is the constituency with the highest percentage of leasehold homes.
Like members of the Committee, I am not just alarmed but very angry about what many constituents have to go through to get even basic repairs and maintenance done. Far too many of them have to deal with uncommunicative —sometimes even rude or dismissive—managing agents, who can offer no clarity on maintenance works, and who delay necessary repairs again and again. To give a recent example, in the heatwaves, constituents living in Royal Captain Court in my constituency have endured the most horrible conditions. The lifts were forced into fire safety mode because of the extreme heat in the tower, which is not air conditioned. One resident fainted on the staircase, and dozens of others suffered in the temperatures. Residents have said that until the BBC reported on the case, they received no replies from the managing agent Sanctuary about how, when or if repairs would be done.
The issue of lift breakdowns is common in my constituency, and will occur more and more as climate change intensifies. On top of that, as we all know, service charges and fees are going through the roof. One constituent recently contacted me to say that their service charges rose by 12% in the last year, after doubling in the decade up to that point. Residents of Aberfeldy Village in my constituency are reporting service charge increases of £600,000 by FirstPort, and residents of the Wapping Lane development report that Ballymore increased their service charges from £7,000 in 2014 to £17,000 this year.
Across the board, residents and constituents tell me that there is no transparency regarding the accounts, and we know that they cannot easily or fairly challenge increases in court. The Government have been consulting on the implementation of section 56 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on provisions around service charge transparency—measures that many of my constituents need implemented swiftly. However, there must also be regulation of managing agents. I cannot simply accept the massive discrepancies in costs, the service charge increases, and the lack of communication and basic decency. In Poplar and Limehouse, many leasehold builds are huge. They are incredibly tall—over 20 floors high, in many cases—and that would make it very difficult for leaseholders to take over and run their building under the right to manage, which is a system that desperately needs simplification.
Some changes are being brought forward in the leasehold Bill, but thousands in my constituency will continue to suffer runaway service charges and from rogue managing agents. In the absence of the abolition of leasehold, it is only right that the Government accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Lord Best, and introduce an independent regulator for managing agents through the leasehold reform Bill. I urge the Government to do that.
I declare an interest as a leasehold homeowner, which is very common in Sheffield. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of her Committee, and of Lord Best, about a regulator.
I welcome the fact that this Government have begun to take a close look at the injustices embedded in the leasehold system. It treats leaseholders not as full homeowners, but as a revenue stream for distant freeholders and managing agents. The draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is an important step forward in correcting the imbalance, and I believe that it will help address many of the structural problems that leaseholders have endured. In my constituency, the consequences of the system are painfully clear, as has been mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). Not only have my constituents experienced threats of forfeiture, but they have been asked to pay thousands of pounds to their freeholder for minor breaches of their lease.
The ability of a freeholder to strip someone of their home is an extraordinary concentration of power, and I am pleased that the Government’s commonhold and leasehold reform Bill proposes abolishing forfeiture entirely. However, abolishing forfeiture alone does not resolve the fundamental injustice. Leaseholders remain trapped in a system that, at its core, is a feudal relic—a structure designed not to empower people, but to extract value from them. Under this system, people who have bought homes find themselves paying escalating service charges, opaque administration fees and arbitrary costs imposed by freeholders.
A significant number of my constituents own leasehold houses, and their lease requires them to ask permission from their freeholder before building a loft conversion or extension, and even before selling on their home. Those permissions are demanded in return for ground rents of little worth—often £10 a year—yet they give freeholders extraordinary control over the lives of leaseholders. That is not a fair housing system.
My constituents have a clear ask. They have rightly suggested that leaseholders of houses should be given a statutory right of first refusal when their leaseholds are sold. At present, leaseholders of houses do not have this right, while leaseholders of flats do. If a freeholder decides to sell the freehold of a house, the leaseholder has no guaranteed opportunity to buy it. They may learn of the sale only once it has occurred, several months later. If we are serious about empowering leaseholders, the right of first refusal must be extended. That should be included in the Bill.
It is not just freeholders who cause problems. We have heard about the problems caused to residents by managing agents, including in my constituency, where leaseholders were made to find £22,000 within five months for major works after an inept management company left balconies and walls to crumble, and the eventual repairs to become more expensive. A two bedroom flat on that estate was advertised for sale with an annual service charge of £5,067, or £422 a month, which in Sheffield is a staggering amount of money, given our relatively low housing costs.
Unsurprisingly, some of my constituents have struggled to sell their flats; they are trapped in the Catch-22 that others have mentioned. It is time that we ended that. We need to ensure that all the powers in the Bill are enacted, but we should also be looking at ways to future proof it, and to root the regulator in fairness.
From the moment I was elected in Hartlepool, my inbox, surgeries and public meetings were filled with people telling me remarkably similar and shocking stories about their estate management companies. That is what I wish to focus my remarks on. The tales are very similar: terrible communication, risible explanations and no accountability, but ever rising bills. Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to send me examples, and I was overwhelmed by the sheer number that I received, so I obviously cannot go through them all today. The stories came from Marine Point, the Longbranch estate, Wynyard Mews, St Mary’s Court and other estates across the town.
One constituent, Andrew, highlighted the fundamental unfairness between estates adopted by the council and those left in private management: people can live just streets apart, pay the same council tax, and yet receive completely different levels of service. Derek asked me a simple question: why should he pay both Hartlepool borough council and Sela Management, when the council cannot carry out the work, because it has not adopted the estate, and the management company also appears unwilling to carry it out?
It is an entirely fair question.
Ray and Janice wish to put their property, which they own outright, into a living trust, yet they were delayed from doing so because Sela Management must first consent. They describe this as “medieval behaviour”. Jordan told me he was threatened over alleged unpaid invoices that he never received. The first meaningful communication was not an explanation; it was a demand. That is no way to treat people. When Helena bought her Longbranch home, she was told that as more families moved on to the estate, the costs would fall, because they would be shared more widely. The number of households has more than doubled. Her charges have not fallen; they have risen by more than £200.
Kim described waiting months for basic repairs, only for residents to feel that the work that was eventually carried out was of poor quality. Others have shown me photographs of unfinished drains, damaged kerbs and maintenance left incomplete. These are not legal technicalities; they are the everyday experiences of ordinary families—people paying real money for work that they cannot see, cannot verify and simply do not believe has been carried out properly.
My constituent Christine, whose property is managed by Kingston, told me that residents were collectively charged around £24,000 to repaint a block of flats on the headland. Within three months, the paint was already peeling. [Interruption.]
Order. Because of a fire evacuation of the Palace, the Serjeant on duty is requesting a suspension of the sitting. I have been advised by the Serjeant at Arms that the Chamber and Gallery should be evacuated, using the nearest available exits. Please proceed in an orderly manner and follow the directions of Doorkeepers or security staff.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
Before I call Jonathan Brash to conclude his speech, the remaining Members will have a time limit of three minutes.
I call Jonathan Brash.
As I was saying, I welcome the Government’s commitment to leasehold reform, but Ministers must ensure that estate management companies are not treated as an afterthought. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 provides important powers that have not yet been brought into force, so I urge Ministers to do that. Estates do need to be managed, but we should go back to how they were managed: by local authorities. That is the way to truly fix the system: ensure that every estate is adopted by every council and drive these estate management companies into the dust where they belong.
I thank the Housing Minister for all his tireless work on these landmark commonhold reforms—I only hope he finds my constant lobbying not too tiresome. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her leadership on this issue.
My parents and grandparents are in the Gallery today. I thank them for ensuring that throughout my childhood, I had a roof over my head. Thanks to their efforts, I have enjoyed the childhood tour around all the various property tenures possible under English law—from council, to private rental, to leasehold, to freehold and a brief interlude as lodgers in a community Christian church.
When my parents moved to Earley, they bought a freehold house that was built in the 1960s. It came with no strings attached. If they had bought the same house on a new build estate built in the last two decades, it would have likely come with estate charges, standing charges for some, and often low quality roads and communal infrastructure that will never have any route to adoption by the local council. They would have had a contract to pay these fees to a property manager—someone they did not choose and who they almost certainly cannot leave. Five million leaseholders also face similar fees, from ground rent to property management charges that are difficult to change.
What has happened over those few decades since the 1960s to make things so much worse for young families moving into new builds today? The negotiations and relationships between developers and local authorities, as other Members have pointed out, have taken a turn for the worse. As a result, over a thousand constituents have been in touch with me, seeking advice for taking control of property management and breaking free of the monopoly held over them.
The problems are not just about charges. In 2024, the average annual service charge bill rose by 11% to £2,300—four times the rate of inflation over the same period—so the average service charge now exceeds the average cost of all other utilities combined.
In Shinfield, the impact on my constituents goes beyond that; they also pay a suitable alternative natural greenspace charge. Following negotiations that I instigated between the landowners and the residents, they are still waiting for a final agreed position. They also face a lack of transparency. Residents in Woodley, for example, have negotiated through me a service charge freeze with their managing agents, FirstPort, but there is still lack of transparency about the underlying charges.
Will the hon. Member give way?
Order. The hon. Gentleman might heed the fact that Members are on a very tight time limit, and he has not been present for any of the debate until this point.
One resident, June, said: “I’m afraid that all the years of bullying, alternating with being ignored by FirstPort on all levels, have finally taken their toll on my mental health”.
It is time for better regulation.
Even before coming to this place, as a local councillor I dealt with so many issues relating to leasehold property management and unadopted estates.
A notable example is the Doulton Brook estate in my constituency, a mixed freehold and leasehold estate with houses and apartments built just over a decade ago by Taylor Wimpey and managed by Trinity Estates. Residents have been dogged by issues from day one, with a lack of transparency around estate management charges and decision making, inheriting responsibility for communal land and infrastructure, and an associated public open space linked to the estate with no clear management and future transfer plan. I pay tribute to Alan Watts, the lead resident of the Doulton Brook action group, and all the residents who have worked closely with me to hold the developer and the managing agent to account and unpick the multitude of issues that exist on a mixed estate like that. I worked with the residents, the council, the managing agent and the developer to get the estate up to an adoptable standard. That was not a quick process, with pushback every step of the way. Developers should not be allowed to leave estates in an unadoptable condition, especially not to use it to generate more money from residents. I hope the Minister will look at how we can facilitate retrospective action for existing estates suffering with the fleecehold system, as well as new ones.
I am part of the Labour for leaseholders group of MPs, and we challenged Trinity Estates’ CEO directly on poor practices. It was clear there was a total lack of oversight from head office as to what happens on the ground. They promised they would do better, but Alan and the other Doulton Brook residents have seen nothing change.
I also want to raise concerns about the use of leasehold in retirement apartments such as Webb Court in Stourbridge, managed by FirstPort. Residents seeking to enjoy their retirement are left stressed and frustrated by poor communication and lack of accountability, with an agent who seems to see the residents as a hindrance rather than customers to serve. Recently, FirstPort took the decision to upgrade the alarm call system—not a problem, but the way it was done meant that elderly residents faced a sudden demand of a lump sum of £1,100, to be paid immediately. Following my intervention, that magically reduced to £300, and we negotiated a payment plan, but this was despite nearly £100,000 sitting in the reserve fund.
I have provided support with issues in other retirement complexes with other managing agents, such as lifts left unfixed, as we have heard today, and residents harassed for payments that they have already made. I hope the Minister will consider the impact on our older generation in such situations, so that they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and her Select Committee colleagues for their excellent report and for securing this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have made important points, including my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who resolutely spoke up for their residents.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for new build flats and the end of forfeiture. Those are clear steps in the right direction, but they do not go nearly far enough. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for an end to unfair residential leasehold since the Liberal Government’s 1909 people’s Budget, and over 100 years on, progress has been woeful. Nearly 5 million households in England are living under this feudal system today. The Housing Secretary himself has called ground rent “money for nothing”, so why pay £250 for nothing for the next 40 years?
For any of the 5 million leaseholders living under this system right now, the draft Bill does very little to help them gain enfranchisement, fix service charges or take control of how their buildings are run. The Government have said they are committed to bringing “the feudal leasehold system to an end.”
Where are the goals and milestones that mean it will happen? A target date is needed by which all leaseholders have had an affordable opportunity to convert to commonhold and for the right to manage across the sector.
As a first step to achieving those targets, the Government should enact all the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement, including cutting out the swindle of development value—recommendations that came out six years ago but, for some reason, remain unimplemented. The Government inherited that delay but then promised in the 2024 King’s Speech to enact them.
Let me give the House a specific example of what the delay in implementing those recommendations means in practice. One constituent in Taunton and Wellington went through the right to manage process as it stands. It took him four years, and he told me it “felt like a full time job.”
The delay meant that he kept paying an overpriced service charge, adding up to an extra £5,000. Residents were forced to set up two separate right to manage companies, duplicating costs, simply to manage two buildings in one estate. Once they had finally won the right to manage, they found no legal way to recover even the basic costs of the right to manage company because the costs were outside what the lease defined as a service charge. There was a similar story when they went to amend their leases. What links all three problems is that the Law Commission recommended they be fixed back in 2020, so why not implement them in the forthcoming Bill?
Right to manage should not be a niche arrangement that only a determined minority can navigate their way into. Landlords and freeholders, who hold all the information and resources, should be required to offer right to manage through a ballot of residents, with a presumption in favour unless more than half of residents vote against it. In respect of leaseholders being enfranchised into owning their own home, and setting a target, the Minister should bring back the amendment he tabled in opposition on properly setting deferment and capitalisation rates. The Bill appears not to contain such a provision.
Before I end, I want to say a word about “fleecehold” as it affects freeholders. They face exactly the same issues of moving in, then having no control over the fees they are forced to pay. Homeowners should be given the right to manage the estates they are contracted into having responsibility for. I understand that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look into this, which is welcome, but the track record on Law Commission advice being acted on is worrying. On 27 January, the Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that those residents would get protection in this Parliament, but that protection is not in the Bill. When will it be legislated for?
In the meantime, councils should be given greater powers to adopt estates. Also, we need a property management regulator of the sort Lord Best recommended, which has the power to crack down on and cap the most exploitative service and estate management charges.
Six years have passed since the Law Commission made its recommendations and seven since Lord Best reported. Forty two years will pass before leaseholders are free of the scourge of ground rent. Yet we still have no goal from the Government on how long it will take for the majority of leaseholders to enfranchise or to gain the right to manage, or for freehold estates to be sorted out. In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister for three things. First, enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations, so that leaseholders get the support they need. Secondly, create a regulator as a matter of urgency, and give it teeth to end rip off charges. Finally, set a clear timetable for enfranchisement and right to manage becoming the norm, so that people win control over their own home. Let us free people from the leasehold trap. The Liberal Democrats would do that without delay.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing and leading this important debate. I pay tribute to the work of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee under her leadership, which generated a 159-page report containing a series of recommendations. I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not comment on the remarks made by Members from all parts of the House, but I extend my thanks to all those who made considered and important contributions.
The Opposition support leasehold reform. As we have heard many times, there are approximately 5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales, and it is clear that the leasehold system comes with problems and requires change. For too many leaseholders, the costs just keep piling up. In 2023-24, the average ground rent paid by a leaseholder in England was £304. Alongside that, there was a 5.8% increase in the annual service charge, taking the average annual cost to nearly £3,000. In London, those costs are even higher, with an average of £412 charged for ground rent and service charges sitting at about £8,000 in some modern high rises.
Even at their highest, the costs continue to rise, bringing more uncertainty for leaseholders. Service charges in particular can rise astronomically, leaving leaseholders having to pay thousands of pounds more than they ever intended or believed they would pay, and some flats virtually impossible to sell. On top of that, for too many leaseholders, the costs they pay come with no transparency about how their money is spent, how spending decisions are reached, and who signs off on them. Lack of clarity around these costs is a problem that policy makers cannot ignore.
Knowledge of these problems is not new. In 2018, the then Government established a regulation of property agents working group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord Best. The group examined the key issues impacting leaseholders and the need for reform in the sector. The group issued its report in 2019 and proposed a new regulator and regulatory regime, and a new enforcement system. Neither the previous Government nor the current one did a great deal to bring that about. Seven years later, we still await any meaningful Government action building on the recommendations of the report, and the draft Bill is silent on that issue.
It is not the only thing that leaseholders have to wait for. In two years, the Government have not yet implemented the full measures promised in the Conservative Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. The Government have said that they have their own plans for leasehold reform, but leaseholders have been told time and again to wait for a new Bill because of significant flaws in LAFRA. For two years, we have been told that primary legislation is required to fix the Act, but nothing has been done, and the draft Bill produced by the Government in January this year does not address the supposed flaws of the previous Act.
That prompts the question: where is that legislation and what is taking so long? Why are the Government proposing to bring forward a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that does not offer these fixes? If the eventual Bill remains in line with the previously published draft Bill, when can we expect the next Bill to address those changes? Assuming this Parliament lasts for a full term, we are now 40% of the way through its life, and we have had more Secretaries of State in that time than actual leasehold reforms.
The Housing Minister himself spent the end of his time in Opposition highlighting the need for speedy implementation of new rights for leaseholders, pressing the previous Conservative Government to “give us a sense of the timetabling of some of the more important provisions in the Bill, because leaseholders watching our proceedings will want to know when the rights provided for by the Bill can be enjoyed.”
Well, he was clearly correct, so I wonder what the shadow Minister of that day would say to the Housing Minister of today. I believe he would ask the same question as me: if not now, then when? When can leaseholders expect to see their rights come into force?
At the end of January this year, the Government published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. According to the draft Bill, leaseholders can expect a ban on leasehold for most new flats; a new commonhold system, including rules for mixed use, mandatory reserve funds and quicker debt recovery; a ground rent cap of £250 per year for many existing leases, which reduces to a peppercorn after 40 years; abolition of forfeiture and the introduction of a more proportionate court based enforcement regime; and the repeal of rentcharge powers on freehold estates.
Perhaps most eye catching of those is the much touted ground rent cap, as the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee set out in her opening speech. The Opposition recognise the need to support leaseholders facing high costs, but while capping ground rent may sound like a silver bullet, for many leaseholders it might be closer to a damp squib. That is because ground rent is usually nowhere near the level of service charges, which can have a genuine and very real impact on a buyer’s ability to find a mortgage. For the many leaseholders burdened by excessive and unclear service charges and rising council tax, the ground rent cap is a mirage in a desert of higher council taxes, escalating service charges and poor building management.
While this move may have some marginal benefit to leaseholders, there could be ramifications elsewhere. Investors have expressed deep seated concerns about the potential impact on investor confidence and faith in the UK system. That is because the UK has long been seen as a safe, secure and predictable place for sound investment, and ground rent investments, favoured by UK pension funds among others, have become an important part of that environment. The Government’s plans to unilaterally and retrospectively revoke key aspects of pre existing ground rent contracts have rippled through our financial districts and risk significantly negative impacts on investor confidence, with a wider undermining of our economy.
The risk of freeholder insolvencies does exist and could be dangerous, as the Government know because their own impact statement lists freeholder insolvencies as a realistic cost that could have spillover impacts on leaseholders. If the Government get this wrong, there could end up being a significant, albeit unintended, risk to leaseholders—people with families and mortgages, or those living in their first home. All of this prompts the question: why is the Government’s focus on ground rent and not service charges? I hope the Minister will take the necessary time to address these very real fears and explain his choice.
As outlined by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green in her opening speech, one of the main focuses of today’s debate concerns the question of the regulation of managing agents and the Select Committee’s recommendation that clauses providing for this are inserted into any forthcoming Bill. We have heard compelling arguments from hon. Members from across the House, and powerful testimonies.
With the Government’s plans for a wholesale market conversion to commonhold, this issue becomes all the more pressing. That is because in moving to commonhold, there is the prospect of responsibility for building safety and management for thousands of flats moving from professionals to residents. That might work perfectly with a dedicated, well trained and attentive residents’ committee at the helm, but what about the multitude of buildings where that may not be the case? What happens when the roof begins to crack, the water starts to seep in and the lifts begin to break down? What happens when the sinking fund has been drained and the residents’ committee chair, who might be under mounting social pressure, is forced to cut service charges to unhealthily and impractically low levels?
If commonhold is to become the norm, we must ensure that the Government are not laissez faire in how they implement the system. They must not blindfold residents who may sleepwalk into a situation in which their homes are under management without proper training, a strong mandate and adequate knowledge of building safety and flood risks. To guard against that, it may very well be that commonhold residents choose to hire a managing agent to care for their homes.
Managing agents exist today—some are good, and some are not—but, as I outlined at the start of my speech, many leaseholders have spoken about the bad experiences they have had at the hands of some agents. The difference between managing agents being appointed under a commonhold system rather than a leasehold one is that the managing agent’s client would be the homeowners themselves, not a distant freeholder. The residents themselves would have the power to hire and fire the managing agent. That is why the Committee’s recommendations are so important.
If there is to be a regulator, it must have teeth, as the noble Lord Best said in his 2019 report and implied again in his evidence to the Committee on 10 March, and as the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said in her speech. If there is a regulator, it is absolutely crucial that it works as intended. It would need to have the requisite expertise, personnel and budget to discharge its duties efficiently. Lessons must be learned from the failings of other regulators, such as the Building Safety Regulator.
The Government are considering bringing their Bill forward and examining the Committee’s work. If the Government decide to heed the recommendations of the Committee, I hope the Minister will commit to working across parties and with the whole industry to ensure that the Government get it right the first time.
Minister Pennycook has agreed to give a short speech to accommodate the next debate.
I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I will cite in the course of my remarks.
It is a pleasure to respond to this vital debate on behalf of the Government, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing it. Commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property agents are issues of the utmost importance to millions of homeowners across the country, and I commend her and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate them in detail. Let me briefly put on record once again my sincere thanks to her, the other members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and its Clerks for the huge amount of work undertaken in support of pre legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
This has been an excellent debate, with many informed and passionate contributions, and I thank all hon. Members who have participated. Collectively, those contributions have served to reinforce both the complexities and challenges of leasehold reform and the strength of feeling that exists across the country in respect of the need to act boldly and urgently to provide relief to the millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices—and make no mistake: they are suffering. We have heard of some particularly egregious cases in this debate.
What may seem like prosaic matters to many—service charges, ground rents, consent fees—are the source of acute financial hardship and misery for huge numbers of those living in one of the approximately 5 million leasehold dwellings in England and Wales. Let me be as clear as I can from the Dispatch Box: leaseholders are being routinely gouged by freeholders and managing agents acting on their behalf. They are being gouged as a result of a system that denies leaseholders control over the homes they live in and have paid for and subjects them to extraction in the form of punitive, escalating ground rents, unreasonable or extortionate charges, unjustified permissions and administration fees, and onerous conditions, often imposed with little or no consultation.
I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: this is not what home ownership should entail. Leasehold is blighting lives. Leasehold is a barrier to a fair and efficient modern residential property market. Leasehold is an anachronism in the 21st century. The aim of this Government by the end of this Parliament is nothing short of dismantling it and bringing the corresponding emancipation of leaseholders.
I will heed your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I do not have time to respond to all the specific points raised, such as points about freehold estates, service charges, development value and the retirement sector. Those were all well made points, and, as ever, I am more than happy to speak to hon. Members outside of the Chamber. I assure the House that none of those issues are an afterthought. Where there are provisions in the 2024 Act, we are working at pace to take them forward; where there are issues outside of the draft Bill, such as freehold estates, we have consultations and are analysing feedback, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) knows.
In our manifesto, we made a clear and unambiguous commitment to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the leasehold system to an end. The forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is not the end of that story, but it is integral to honouring that manifesto commitment. As the Committee’s report rightly recognises, the draft legislation represents a significant step towards ending the leasehold system for good, delivering greater fairness for leaseholders while laying the foundations for a reinvigorated commonhold model. I am immensely grateful to the Committee for its detailed and thoughtful scrutiny of the draft Bill. Its report provides a valuable set of recommendations as we continue the process of augmenting, strengthening and refining the Bill for introduction. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee knows, we are considering each of those recommendations carefully, and I hope we can report back in the not too distant future.
I want to make some very brief remarks about commonhold and ground rent, but before I do, let me address the main issue that has been the subject of today’s debate, which is that of property managing agents and the Committee’s recommendation that we establish a new, independent public body as a regulator of them, with enforcement powers. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and others who have mentioned the importance of control. I continue to believe that giving leaseholders control over the buildings they live in is our overriding priority, and that that will help to tackle the majority of abuses.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that I have listened and heard the serious concerns raised on both sides of the House about the performance of managing agents, both on freehold estates and in leasehold blocks—I know from my own caseload how serious these problems are. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and as the shadow Minister said, their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. That is precisely why we have committed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.
As hon. Members know—it has been mentioned several times—the previous Government committed in 2018 to regulate the property agents sector. It asked a working group chaired by Lord Best, who I am very pleased to see in the Gallery, to advise them on how to do it, yet over multiple years they failed to act on that report’s findings. We have already progressed work on a number of those recommendations, including mandatory professional qualifications.
However, I will state candidly that in taking forward those and other measures designed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, we have a choice about how we do so. We face those choices in the context of a substantive Bill that is already around 260 clauses and 20 schedules and could grow further, and the fact that we have made very clear—I stress this point again to hon. Members—that this is not the only piece of legislation required to meet our manifesto commitments. Other pieces of primary legislation are required, not least to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage.
I want to make it clear, though, that I take very seriously the Committee’s recommendation of a new independent regulator. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and rule one out—indeed, I am personally extremely sympathetic to it—but we will set our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course. I can assure hon. Members that in finalising that position, we will continue to consider all aspects of Lord Best’s report.
I can feel your eyes upon me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am going to skirt over commonhold—I am more than happy to speak to any hon. Members who have particular concerns about that—and speak briefly about ground rents. In particular, I want to touch on the decision the Government made in the draft Bill. We committed in our manifesto to “tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges”, and we are delivering on that commitment through the Bill. As hon. Members know, the draft Bill will cap ground rents at £250 a year initially, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. This will deliver immediate relief for hundreds of thousands of leaseholders during this Parliament, and over the lifetime of that policy position, it will save leaseholders between £10 billion and £12.7 billion. It is a significant intervention. After 40 years, all ground rents will change to a peppercorn, ensuring that they are brought to an end in their entirety.
However, it is our view that a 40-year transitional period is necessary to avoid unintended consequences and ensure stability for leaseholders and the wider property market. This is a balanced and fair solution to the problems caused by unaffordable, unregulated ground rents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee that the cap must be introduced as soon as possible, so that leaseholders can benefit from reduced costs and more easily access mortgage financing when looking to move home. Subject to parliamentary timings, we are seeking to introduce the ground rent cap by 2028 at the latest. That is not the end of 2028—it is a point in time in 2028 at the latest—but I want to stress the words “at the latest”. It is up to this House to ensure that pieces of legislation progress more quickly.
Before concluding, I can helpfully clarify the answer to the very specific question that the shadow Minister put to me. There is no ambiguity about the fixes that need to be made to the 2024 Act. It is really unfortunate that we have to make fixes to that Act.
We should not be repairing primary legislation through new primary legislation, but we confirmed in the King’s Speech on 13 May that fixes to those flaws will be included in the forthcoming substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green for applying for this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and all those who have participated in it for sharing their concerns, insights and case studies. I look forward to providing the Committee with a formal response to its report as quickly as we possibly can—notwithstanding the current constraints—and I look forward to continued engagement with the Committee as our substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill progresses and as we continue to implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute.
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.
[Relevant documents: Sixth Report of the Education Committee of Session 2024-26, Further Education and Skills, HC 666, and the Government response, HC 1555.]
I beg to move, That this House has considered access to further education.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all the Members who supported bringing this important debate to Parliament today. I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity, aspiration and economic productivity in my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby: post-16 education. Too often, we speak about equality of opportunity as though it can be achieved through slogans, White Papers or ministerial announcements. For a young person leaving school at 16, opportunity is far more practical than that. It is about whether there is a good college course nearby; it is about whether they can afford to enrol on an apprenticeship without spending hours getting there, and how they find the money for travel; it is about whether they can see a clear route from the classroom into a skilled, well paid job; and it is about whether they believe they can build a successful life in the town where they grew up.
For too many young people in Runcorn, those routes are not clear enough. The existing provision is limited. Riverside college in Widnes does important work across Halton, but it is on the other side of the Mersey. For young people in Runcorn, that means a daily bridge crossing to access courses and facilities. Crossing the bridge into Widnes means paying the toll and facing additional travel time and cost. The sole local sixth form in Runcorn is at the Ormiston Bolingbroke academy. It has only 350 places, which is enough for less than 20% of the more than 2,000 16 to 18-year olds in Runcorn. Provision is fragmented, options are limited and too many still face the prospect of travelling elsewhere for the courses, specialist facilities or technical opportunities they need. That is not good enough for a town with the industrial strength, scientific expertise and economic potential of Runcorn.
Runcorn is home to major manufacturing, logistics, pharmaceutical and life sciences employers. We have DHL, Ineos Inovyn, Encirc, Essar and Cemex, to name but a few. At the Sci Tech Daresbury park, there are opportunities in engineering, software, laboratory science, project management, advanced manufacturing and technology. These are not theoretical jobs of the future; they are real opportunities on our doorstep, yet too many young people do not see a direct bridge between their school and those careers.
That is why I believe that Runcorn needs a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub—a serious local offer, built around the needs of local employers and the ambitions of local young people. This should not simply be another institution, with another layer of bureaucracy, offering courses that do not lead to good jobs or which simply rack up student debt; it should be a practical partnership between Riverside college, local schools, Halton borough council, major employers and the Government. It could provide specialist technical education in engineering, construction, health and social care, digital skills, laboratory science, logistics and advanced manufacturing. It could offer high quality T levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and routes into higher education. It could give young people access to work placements, mentoring and guaranteed interviews with local employers. It could also give businesses a strong local pipeline of skilled young people who are ready to work, ready to learn and ready to contribute.
Having spoken directly to many local employers, I know there is a strong appetite to support that kind of initiative, and to play an active role in shaping and delivering it. That is how we should think about post-16 education: not as a separate part of the education system, but as completing the education journey, which should not finish until 18. We do not need to import talent while overlooking the talent growing up in our own communities. Indeed, local talent should be our priority.
Halton faces serious challenges. Too many children grow up in low income households, too many pupils face disadvantage, and too many young adults leave education without the qualifications that would have opened up doors for them. In a constituency where many families have seen opportunities disappear over generations, post-16 education must be part of rebuilding hope, and that includes confronting difficult truths. The evidence shows that disadvantaged white British pupils, particularly boys, continue to experience poor educational outcomes in many parts of the country. In communities such as mine, where the population is overwhelmingly white and deprivation is entrenched, that cannot be treated as an awkward subject to be avoided. Neither should we ignore a generation of working class children who feel that the education system does not understand them, does not speak to them and does not offer them a route to a secure future.
When a young person cannot see the point of school, cannot see a realistic job at the end of it and cannot access training close to home, disengagement becomes more likely. The consequences are severe: fewer qualifications, weaker employment prospects, lower wages and a greater risk of being left behind, with nothing to show for years at school and no prospect of employment. That is bad for young people, bad for their families and bad for the community. Towns like Runcorn cannot thrive, grow or prosper without a high standard of education and decent job prospects for their young people. The answer is not to lower expectations, but to give young people something real to aspire to.
A young person in Runcorn should be able to leave school knowing that they can train for a career in engineering, become a laboratory technician, enter digital work, learn a skilled trade, join a manufacturer or progress towards university. I therefore ask the Minister to work with local education providers, Halton borough council and employers to examine how a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub for Runcorn can be delivered. That work should include a proper assessment of the local skills gap, the courses that employers need, the facilities required, and the opportunities for a satellite campus or specialist centre in Runcorn itself. It should also include a clear expectation that major local employers play their part through apprenticeships, placements, career advice, and direct partnerships with schools and providers.
Runcorn has the businesses, it has the people and it has the potential. What it needs is a more ambitious local settlement between education, industry and Government. The young people of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby are every bit as capable, ambitious and hard working as young people anywhere in Britain. They do not need pity; they need opportunity. They deserve the chance to gain the skills, qualifications and confidence to build successful lives in the communities they call home. For Runcorn, for our local economy and for the next generation, we must do better.
Order. This debate has to conclude at 5 pm. For me to accommodate all Back Benchers, there will be a speaking limit of two minutes.
Investment in our colleges is essential to this country’s future and to our manufacturing sector, our house building targets and our NHS. In Stafford, it is clear that we have no shortage of ambitious young people—I know this, as I meet them weekly—but we must invest in their futures. We must invest in our colleges to make sure that their futures are all they can be. I am proud of what this Government’s investment has delivered so far. Our advanced manufacturing tech is going to change the landscape in Stafford, and that work, done in combination with our local employers—hand in glove—shows exactly what can be achieved by an ambitious Labour Government.
I want to take this opportunity to raise something put to me directly by my local college and by Make UK, because it gets to the heart of the problem of how we fund our manufacturing and technical education. Right now, the payment per pupil is the same regardless of whatever course is being delivered, so an A level student doing three A levels in a classroom attracts the same funding as a student on a technical engineering apprenticeship, despite the fact that the equipment, the facilities, the staffing and the delivery costs are so different. At a place like Stafford college, which genuinely excels in exactly this kind of high cost, high value technical provision, that is really unfair and a direct disincentive to deliver the courses that matter most. If we are serious about making technical education genuinely world class, we have to fund it as though we mean it.
That is why I am so pleased and it is such an honour— I talk about it all the time—to have the best college in the country in my constituency. [Interruption.] It is widely accepted to be the best college in the country! I am also very pleased that the Government have taken substantial steps to invest in further education and vocational courses, so I would like to ask the Minister: what further investment is planned in our college estate, and how can the course funding imbalance be addressed to ensure that we have the best facilities and the best staff, and that we create the best possible opportunities?
Too often, the voices of people who come through routes like apprenticeships, working people or tradespeople are missing from these debates, but I am really proud of my education and of my route through as an apprentice.
On apprenticeships, at the moment we are asking too many small and medium sized businesses to carry the responsibility of training up the next generations of people without the funding and recognition that they deserve. I have met with small businesses across my constituency that want to take on apprentices, but tell me it is too expensive and too complicated; and it is not a lack of lack of willingness—it is a lack of support. We have to make it easier for small businesses to recruit apprentices by simplifying levy transfers, reducing administrative burdens wherever possible, and providing long term funding certainty for their rising costs.
Apprenticeships need to be made easier for young people and families to understand and access, and to be recognised and respected as the meaningful route into essential skilled work that they are, with support for apprenticeship wages that better reflect local labour markets and the removal of unfair practical barriers. We want free bus fares for under-22s so that no young person is held back from getting to their apprenticeship. We want equal access to funded childcare and the scrapping of disincentives such as those within the benefit system.
Finally, we need economic policy that focuses on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country, so that young people in places like Gorton and Denton are no longer left behind. In places like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight—all the places in my constituency—our young people have never lacked talent or drive, but we must stop wasting it, give them a chance and properly back further education and apprenticeships as the national assets that they are.
I want to raise awareness of the transformative role of further education in remote coastal communities, like mine in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in Cornwall. Despite the talent, ambition and resilience of our young people, parts of my constituency continue to experience persistent deprivation. Nine neighbourhoods rank among the most deprived in the entire country. But amidst that deprivation, our local further education sector is helping to change lives and create opportunity. Cornwall college, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, is a shining example. It is a vital cog driving our economic engine, equipping young people with the skills that they need to succeed, and providing employers with the workforce required to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.
There is another further education college in Cornwall: Truro and Penwith college. Does my hon. Friend agree that transport, and getting children in rural and coastal areas to colleges and work placements, is a major issue?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. In Cornwall, we have had significant issues with bus services to our colleges. We really need the Government to help with that.
Cornwall is on its way to an industrial renaissance as a strategically significant economic frontier. We are seeing exciting developments in critical minerals, including tin, lithium and tungsten, as well as in geothermal energy and offshore wind. Those sectors are creating good jobs that are vital to the national interest, and will help us to transition away from a fossil fuel based economy.
With that in mind, I warmly welcome the launch this September of the new Engineering Mining Academy. This is a partnership between Cornwall college and Cornish Metals. It brings together two of Cornwall’s crown jewels to train the next generation of engineers and mining professionals, and will ensure that young people can benefit directly from the return of the mining industry to Cornwall. This is exactly the kind of collaboration we need if we are to seize the opportunity to deliver growth in every corner of the country.
However, we cannot let staffing challenges, or cuts to dedicated student bus services, which my hon. Friend just mentioned, threaten those opportunities. Recruitment and retention are especially difficult in remote coastal areas, where there are profound housing and transport pressures. Unless we address workforce shortages, we risk undermining the FE institutions that are providing the skills on which our future economy depends. Cornwall’s FE colleges are playing their part, but we need the Government to step up and provide the funding settlement that our FE colleges deserve.
Quite often when I come to this place, it is to moan and groan, and gripe about something that has gone wrong, but today I want to highlight a really positive story. One of the first campaigns I ran after the general election was to secure an extension to the FE capital transformation fund for the rebuilding of Harrogate college. That is really exciting. I have been to Harrogate college a number of times, and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with people from across the local area. The new building will have some really exciting features, such as a replica hospital wing and renewable engineering kit. It is a really good success story about how we can upskill future generations to meet the skills gap.
I visited Harrogate college earlier this year for Colleges Week, when the theme was “Skills for All”. I press the Minister on what more we are doing to ensure diversity, and to get people from all backgrounds into apprenticeships and FE colleges. I used to be on the board of governors at Selby college, where I did my A levels. A great thing there were the partnerships with industries and experts; they really supported FE colleges, and went above and beyond when it came to kit in the classrooms.
When I meet the principal of Harrogate college, he tells me that the real terms cut to the devolved adult skills fund is placing pressure on the college. I gently ask the Minister whether that could be looked at, going forward, so that we can build effective pathways that allow adult learners to progress into areas where we see skill shortages. Harrogate college is well placed to help address the “not in education, employment or training” issue.
I would like to press the Minister on the funding cliff edge. There is also an issue relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and home school transport issues. The principal of Harrogate college has told me repeatedly that he has seen an increase of children with SEND going to Harrogate college, but transport to get them there is a massive issue, and a barrier. What will the Minister do to ensure that people can get to FE colleges in the first instance?
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a governor at the City of Stoke on Trent sixth form college and the Abbey Hill special college, and chair of the all party parliamentary group on sixth form education. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this genuinely important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for rightly pointing out that the best college in the country is in my county. Where she was wrong is that it is actually 10 miles north, in my constituency, not hers, but that is a different matter.
I will push the Minister on two or three things. First is the introduction of the V levels. I am grateful that the Government recognised that the scrapping of BTECs would leave a gap in the market for young people who wanted to go to college to study qualifications. The first three V levels are due to be rolled out in September 2027, but the qualification guidelines are not going to be released until spring 2027, meaning that many colleges will be unable to work out what they will have to teach to ensure that young people get the qualification. Those prospectuses are being printed now, and knowing what the guidelines are would be a big help. Is there any chance the Minister could bring forward that announcement? I know colleges would be grateful.
There is also the issue of stand alone sixth form colleges, which fall between the cracks of FE and sixth forms in multi academy trusts when it comes to capital funding. They do not qualify for the school condition allocation fund, as those in MATs do, or the FE capital transformation fund. That is a genuine problem, because in the types of places that Members have mentioned, those stand alone sixth form colleges are a real engine for social mobility. They do not have the ability to borrow—it was taken away from them—and they are funded at 29% less than schools, so accessing capital becomes a real issue for the growing number of young people who want to go there.
Finally, I will push the Minister on the transport infrastructure that makes colleges accessible. Can the Department for Transport think about colleges as somewhere that bus routes ought to run to? In too many place, young people cannot rely on parents to get them there. Buses unlock opportunity for education and progression.
I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this important debate. I will spare hon. Members the parts of my speech about the importance of FE—I am sure we all agree that it is very important. Instead, I will talk to the Minister about the lasting impact on further education in my constituency of his Department’s 2016 review of post-16 education in Cheshire. That review has had deeply damaging consequences across Mid Cheshire, which continue to be felt by children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.
We know that there is a clear and well established link between the distance a student has to travel for further education, and their likelihood of remaining engaged and successfully completing their course. In Mid Cheshire, we have been caught in a perfect storm. Colleges around Cheshire, which have been under pressure from financial instability caused by quality concerns, have responded through mergers and the gradual withdrawal of provision in communities like mine.
Where once there was a large FE campus in Northwich and a smaller one in Winsford, there is now just the small one in Winsford, which this year has ceased offering courses for 16 to 19-year olds—it is now post-19 only. Winsford has NEET levels five percentage points higher than the borough wide average for Cheshire West and Chester. The situation is as unacceptable today as when it first emerged. Even though it all started 10 years ago, it is still repeatedly raised by my constituents as an example of a deep injustice that they feel.
I strongly urge the Minister to revisit the issue with some urgency, and to commission a fresh comprehensive review that does not just look at the current landscape but actively seeks to repair the damage that was caused. It must prioritise accessibility, local provision and fairness, ensuring that further education once again serves all communities, rather than leaving some behind.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this important debate. Access to further education is access to opportunity. For most young people, and for a great many adults, it is the route to a job or back into learning. When that access works, it changes lives. When it does not, we fail not just an individual but their family, their local community, the economy and, over a lifetime, the public purse.
We do not make it as easy as it should be to access further education. I will focus on two barriers: funding and transport, on which the Government are not going far enough or fast enough. Last year, in the skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised real terms increases in per pupil funding for 16 to 19 providers. Instead, per head funding this year is going up by just 0.55%. That is a real terms cut. Overall funding for 16 to 19 education now stands at around £4.7 billion, 30% below its inflation adjusted high of £6.8 billion in 2003-04.
Cambridge Regional College sits just outside my constituency of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Its principal, Mark Robertson, has been clear with me about the cost: there is a pay gap of around £12,500 between school and FE teachers. At a time when the college needs enough maths and English teachers to deliver resits for about 1,300 young people in each subject, those teachers could earn thousands more teaching exactly the same subject in a school down the road.
Less visible but just as damaging is the fact that colleges are funded based on the previous year’s intake. This means that when demand rises—and it is rising—colleges have to enrol and teach students now, but must wait, often a full academic year, to be funded for them. Nationally, colleges took on around 32,000 additional 16 to 19 students in ’25-26 to meet that rising demand, and were left to absorb the costs themselves. That is not a funding system that supports improving access.
I would just suggest two changes that might help. As the Minister will know, colleges, unlike schools, cannot reclaim VAT. That amounts to a tax on further education worth around £210 million per year. The Liberal Democrats would end that anomaly. We would also extend the pupil premium to post-16 learners, including those in FE, so that support for disadvantaged young people does not simply stop the day they turn 16.
Of course, funding cannot reach colleges that are not there. I will give another example from my constituency: St Neots is the largest town in Cambridgeshire, but it has no further education college of its own. Despite innovative efforts to provide some provision in the town, many of our young people must travel to reach the courses that could change their lives. Of course, St Neots is far from being the only further education cold spot in the country.
That brings me to the second barrier: transport. The law requires every young person to remain in education or training until 18, but it does not require any local authority to help them to get there. Once a young person turns 16, transport support becomes discretionary, rather than statutory—a cliff edge at exactly the point the law starts asking more of them, not less. The Association of Colleges tells us that some students face journeys of up to three hours a day to reach their course, and colleges are increasingly subsidising transport themselves out of budgets meant for teaching and learning.
The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to fully restore the £2 bus fare cap—a change that hit rural passengers particularly hard, in exactly the areas where too many of our young people are trying to reach college. Perhaps the Minister could also explain in this debate why a more direct measure—a concessionary bus pass for under-22s, which was recommended by the Transport Committee—was rejected by the Government as unaffordable.
To conclude, it is worth highlighting what it costs when access fails. The Milburn review puts a number on it: an average of £29,000 a year for every person who is not in education, employment or training, rising to a lifetime cost of £240,000. We spend £7,900 a year on a further education student—that is not a close call. This is a false economy on a national scale. There is a missed opportunity on our doorstep to prove that it does not have to be this way. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to address those barriers to access.
I now call the shadow Minister—I believe it is his first time. Congratulations and welcome, shadow Minister.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this debate. Whatever our political differences, I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that should unite Members across this House: ensuring that every young person, wherever they live, has the opportunity to develop the skills they need to succeed.
After the previous Labour Government badly neglected apprenticeships, the Conservative party prioritised them, delivering around 5.8 million apprenticeships between 2010 and 2024 and creating apprenticeship routes into 70% of occupations. The Conservatives are clear that further education is a great driver of social mobility. That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T levels, degree level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in demand skills that businesses need.
Access to apprenticeships is not simply about education policy; it is about opportunity, social mobility and ensuring that the next generation can harness their unique talents to build rewarding careers, support their families and contribute to the prosperity of our country. Apprenticeships should enjoy parity of esteem with academic routes. University is the right choice for many, but it is not the only route to success. We know that higher level apprenticeships are now out earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice.
The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level 2 apprenticeship starts hitting their lowest level in four years last year, the time for action is now. Ministers wax lyrical about growth, skills and opportunity, yet employers continue to raise concerns about complexity, uncertainty and a system that is still failing too many young people.
Young people cannot build careers on announcements alone. This week, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) spoke passionately about placing technical education at the heart of economic renewal. That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition has put forward a clear alternative through our new deal for young people, which places apprenticeships and technical education at the heart of economic opportunity. It would expand high quality apprenticeships, remove barriers that prevent employers from taking on young people and ensure that skills funding follows the needs of local economies rather than the priorities of Whitehall.
We believe that employers should find it easier, not harder, to invest in the next generation. We believe that colleges should have the flexibility to respond to local labour market demand. Above all, we believe that every young person deserves a pathway into skilled employment, whether through university, an apprenticeship or another technical route.
If the Government genuinely believe that apprenticeships are central to growth, they—and the party of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which needs to see what properly considered policy looks like—should accept our fully funded new deal for young people. It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every British apprentice they hire; and introduce a £5,000 first job bonus allowing young people to keep the first £5,000 of national insurance they would have paid by placing it into a savings account for a first home or future security.
The proposal for an apprenticeship hub in the hon. Member’s constituency deserves to be examined on its merits. If it can demonstrate value for money, genuine local demand and strong employer engagement, I hope that Ministers will engage constructively. But the debate, as we have heard in contributions from across the House, is about more than one constituency; it is about whether a young person leaving school believes that hard work and determination will be rewarded, whether employers have confidence that Britain is developing the skilled workforce that it needs and whether the Government will match their words with action.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this timely and important debate. I have not had the chance to speak to her since her powerful and moving contribution earlier. FE colleges are engines of economic growth and social justice. They are anchor institutions, bridging talent with opportunities. While often overlooked, they are central to our very success and prosperity as a country.
I know full well the power of further education from my own local college, Lakes college in Cumbria, which, with the power of the Dispatch Box, I will declare is the best in the country. It has a distinctive national specialism in nuclear skills and engineering. But it is essential that everyone—whatever their background and circumstances and wherever they live—can access the opportunities of excellent further education.
Order. Minister, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but the best colleges are in my constituency of Sussex Weald.
I am just relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were not ticking me off for something else. [Interruption.] Okay. It is a growing list.
It is essential that everyone, wherever their background and wherever they live, has access to excellent further education funding. That point was made by a number of Members in the debate. Just yesterday, the Government announced an additional £120 million for further education in 2026-27, rising to £365 million in 2027-28.
This Government have rightly made capital investment decisions for the long term. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to properly plan further education provision with the skills and jobs needed for long term growth in infrastructure?
I do, and it is only possible with the funding that I was setting out that the Government have secured.
Funding per student aged 16 to 19 will have increased by over 12% in two years. That comes at a time of significant growth in student numbers. As a result, total 16-to-19 funding will increase from £7.6 billion in 2024-25 to over £9 billion in 2026-27, which is a material increase. This is timely because of the current challenge we face of the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training. The number is too high, and the consequences are serious.
The Government have a comprehensive plan for further education and post-16 education and skills overall to support young people into rewarding careers and tackle high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. As well as technical excellence colleges—specialist further education colleges in England designed to deliver high quality training in priority sectors—we are introducing the new V levels, which will sit alongside T levels as the technical route and A levels as the academic route, which Members will be familiar with.
The youth guarantee is this Government’s commitment to ensure that all young people can access education, training and apprenticeships, employment support or work opportunities. We are supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and offering a £2,000 hiring payment for small businesses. This is complemented by the jobs guarantee, which provides eligible young people with a guaranteed six month paid job, helping them gain work experience, skills and a route into sustained employment.
The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby highlighted the need for capacity in FE. Demographics mean that this is a national challenge, but we expect 67,000 additional 16-year olds and 17-year olds to enter the post-16 system in 2028, which is very soon. That means we are investing £570 million to create the space that is needed in FE. Post-16 providers that are not in mayoral strategic combined authorities—I believe that the hon. Member’s constituency is not—have been able to bid for the construction skills capacity fund, the outcome of which will be revealed very shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised the variation in the cost of payments per pupil. High cost 16 to 19 courses do receive more money. For example, engineering attracts 73% more funding than base cost classroom courses.
The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) was right to highlight the problems with the apprenticeship levy as was. We are making big changes to make it less bureaucratic for small businesses, in particular with the growth and skills levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) highlighted issues with transport, as did many other Members. He was right to say that bus access is integral to opportunities at further education colleges. I know that from my own constituency.
I would just like to highlight a point of inequity. Mayors sometimes subsidise buses for young people aged 16 to 19, which means that young people in urban areas are better set than those in rural areas where the councils cannot afford to do that and young people have much further to travel.
As a Cumbrian MP, I know that problem all too well, and I know that many in Cornwall experience that too. We are building back our bus system in this country. There have been significant increases in funding for local authorities to build back that bus system. We do need to go further on it, and I completely recognise the connection that has been drawn by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) asked about funding. About 70% of FE funding comes from the Department for Education through the funding for post-16 courses. Earlier in my speech I set out the 12% increase over the last two years. Because that is such a large proportion, I recognise the other issues with adult skills budgets, but overall FE college funding is going up as a result of all of that.
I appreciate that this is the responsibility of our noble Friend in the other place, but if the Minister’s officials could write with an answer, I would be grateful. It is reported that pension contributions in the college sector will likely drop by about 8% as a result of the funds doing very well. There is a rumour that some of the colleges’ dividend from having to pay less into pension funds will be clawed back mid academic year as part of the Department’s negotiations. I appreciate that he cannot answer that now, but that would be incredibly damaging to colleges. Any way of mitigating it would be welcomed across the sector.
I was about to turn to my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to recognise the limits of my knowledge, given that my noble Friend in the other place has responsibility for that issue. I will happily ask for officials to write to my hon. Friend about that concern. He is also right to highlight the need for care in handling the transition in qualifications—a point he has made many times and on which he has helped the Government get to a sensible place. I will also ask my noble Friend, given her responsibility for this brief, to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) about the issue in his constituency.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), rightly highlights issues around funding. I believe I have covered that in relation to yesterday’s excellent news on FE teacher pay, overall funding and the population at post-16 settings; there will be a 12% increase over the next two years. The hon. Member and I spend quite a bit of time exchanging ideas and comments about each other’s plans; I have stopped keeping a tally of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats, because they are racking up.
I congratulate the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are of one mind on the need for a transformation in further education. I do not have time to tackle the hypocrisy of the Conservative party’s student loans plan, because I have been asked to wrap up.
With that in mind, let me finish by saying that further education colleges are a manifestation of so much that we value as a Government and as a country. We back them with the money, reform and status they rightly deserve. There will be more to come, but change is already afoot. I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby for securing the debate and all Members for contributing.
I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon. This should not be a political issue; it should be addressed by all parties with the interests of young people at their hearts. In places like Runcorn, we are failing young people. Although I listened with some amusement about who has the best colleges, I am very envious, because I do not have a further education college. That is exactly what I am looking for. I welcome the news of the increase in funding; I hope that a great chunk of it is directed towards Runcorn.
Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to further education.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Lilian Greenwood.)
It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force.
I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it.
Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not for profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not for profit company Siren Associates Ltd.
This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not for profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force.
People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever.
The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve and a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies.
It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees.
If this not for profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not for profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done.
So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought.
Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd.
When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me.
I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?”
The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers.
That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach.
I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous.
Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned.
The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way.
To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate and for providing me with an opportunity to talk about the Lincolnshire police, which is where he started and so where I shall start as well. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that after years and years of underfunding for Lincolnshire police, we have secured a further £12 million a year in the first multi year Lincolnshire police funding arrangement starting in January. I know that he will share my gladness in that arrangement.
The hon. Member referred to a range of issues about which I will not pass comment, unless Madam Deputy Speaker wishes to instruct me otherwise, including the conduct of other hon. Members in this House and what sounds like a private law dispute with the company in question. Let me turn to some of the substantive questions he raised in relation to the contract. I was pleased to see the hon. Member briefly earlier today and I am happy to discuss some of his questions in person, which may be easier.
I agree with the hon. Member that of course the Government must spend money diligently in support of UK interests and in a way that delivers value for taxpayers. I disagree with his assertion that the award of the contract under discussion does not align with those principles, so I will say a little about the contract and about Lebanon, and then I will seek to wind up.
The Foreign Office currently has one contract with Siren Associates and it is subject to formal commercial oversight. As the hon. Member says, it is part of the overall ISF programme. As he knows, it is to deliver the internal security assistance programme in Lebanon to support Lebanon’s internal security forces, and to help them become more trusted, professional and better able to address Lebanon’s internal security challenges. I have seen some of our work in Lebanon. It is precisely aimed at the issues he alluded to. We must see in Lebanon the security forces of Lebanon in control of the whole country, not Lebanese Hezbollah, a group that he rightly identifies as a terrorist group proscribed in this country.
The programme supports better planning, stronger police operations, improved co ordination with the Lebanese armed forces, including in the South Litani Sector, which the hon. Member will know is the area that has been the subject of so much discussion in recent months. It is part of Britain’s wider efforts to promote stability in a highly volatile region, something that is firmly in the UK’s interests. I have seen for myself in the South Litani Sector the difference this support is making.
As this House is aware, and as the hon. Member alluded to, Lebanon faces an extremely challenging security situation. The actions of Hezbollah have dragged Lebanon once again into a conflict that neither its people nor its Government have sought. We have been clear that Hezbollah’s reprehensible attacks on communities in northern Israel must cease, but disproportionate Israeli military action in Lebanon has displaced over a million people and caused significant loss of life.
It is in that context that we seek to help. For all these reasons, it is vital that Lebanon’s legitimate security institutions are able to exercise state sovereignty across the country and provide security to Lebanese citizens. The UK has been a close partner of the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces since 2009. We have provided training, equipment and advice to build their capability. That is important support to address key threats to Lebanon’s security.
Turning to the contract currently underway with Siren, the Foreign Office’s procurement processes are designed to ensure that all programmes are subject to robust due diligence, that they deliver value for money and that they are aligned both with UK priorities and the interests of taxpayers, including those in Boston, Skegness and Lincoln.
The contract with Siren Associates was awarded under the conflict, stability and security fund framework agreement, now known as the ISF framework agreement. It followed a competitive tender process and was open to around 80 suppliers, including a mixture of not for profit and commercial organisations. We received three tenders from interested suppliers, and each tender was checked for compliance with published instructions. Technical proposals were assessed against published criteria by a panel of subject matter experts, with scores moderated and agreed through a clear and documented process.
Commercial submissions were evaluated separately using the published methodology, with pricing tested against affordability, framework limits, eligible cost rules and value for money considerations. Due diligence was a core part of that procurement process. That included conflict of interest checks, financial health reviews, sanctions screening and an assessment of delivery and commercial risks. The competitive process was also scrutinised by a commercial governance board, which approved the outcome before the contract was awarded. As I set out in my letter in January to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, the review of Siren Associates did not identify any areas that would prevent awarding the contract.
The contract is currently valued at £17.2 million over three years—rather less than the increase to Lincolnshire police over the next three years, I am sure the hon. Member will be pleased to note. As he said, the contract began in September 2025 and runs until March 2028, and it can be extended until March 2030. Any further changes to the contract would be subject to a further rigorous assessment to ensure continued value for money.
The hon. Member raises concerns about the size of payments to Siren Associates’ directors, reported in the company’s filed accounts. I have checked this question with the Department, and the Foreign Office’s understanding is that other than the fees for services rendered, there are no other payments to Siren Associates’ directors in its published accounts. The Foreign Office manages and monitors payments to Siren Associates for work conducted for the Foreign Office; however, we do not have oversight of transactions that do not relate to Foreign Office work.
Let me be clear with the House that all relevant due diligence checks have been completed and deemed satisfactory. We will continue to keep the programme under close review, as we do with all Foreign Office programmes, to ensure that it delivers in full. We remain committed to supporting the Government of Lebanon and addressing threats to their security. Our long standing work with the Lebanese armed forces and its internal security forces is a core part of that. That capability is central to maintaining security in Lebanon and preventing threats to the country, to the region and, ultimately, to the United Kingdom.
I will conclude with three clear points. First, supporting Lebanon’s security is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Secondly, we believe the programme delivered by Siren Associates is a practical and important part of that effort. Thirdly, the contract was awarded to Siren Associates through a rigorous and proper process.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.