Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Nine years ago, 72 people, 18 of them children, died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It was a deadly betrayal and a national tragedy that must never happen again. Let me start by remembering those who lost their lives and paying tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and members of the Grenfell community.

In the time since, the community has campaigned to fix the building safety crisis exposed by the tragedy. That is why we are all here today—so that no one suffers as they have. A decent, safe and secure home is not too much to ask for, but for many it is still out of reach. Despite nine years passing since the Grenfell tragedy, up to 380,000 residents are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Every single one of them tells a story of someone unable to move on with their life, stuck in an unsafe home, unable to sell, and often unable to sleep at night. There are even stories of families evacuated without any guarantee of when they can return home. The mental and financial burden can become unbearable.

We have taken action, and we have accepted our responsibilities, but the truth is that others have not. There are still people and companies out there who are not acting quickly enough to make homes safe. Of the 4,724 buildings where unsafe cladding has been identified, work has been completed on only 1,849. Regulators have so far had to take enforcement action on over 900 buildings where those responsible were not taking their responsibilities seriously. As a Government, we will stand up for every leaseholder who is stuck in an unremediated flat, unable to move on with their lives and facing huge costs in the meantime.

When this Government came to power, the pace of remediation was unacceptably slow. That is why in December 2024 I announced the remediation acceleration plan—our blueprint to identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. We are now delivering on that plan, which means that buildings will be fixed faster and residents will be supported better.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare that I am a leaseholder whose home did have cladding, though happily that has now been resolved. I represent one of the largest concentrations of new builds with cladding, and there are serious issues, as the Secretary of State has begun to highlight. Back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee issued a report about the need to improve skills and make more contractors available, so I appreciate the grip that she took of the situation in 2024 as Secretary of State. Will she flesh out a bit more what work she is doing with other Departments to ensure we get the necessary skilled workforce? That is one of the biggest factors that slows down my constituents’ getting the justice that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Hopefully, as we go through the Bill she will see how we are changing the emphasis in particular to ensure that the buildings most at risk will be remediated first. As I said, we have given social housing providers access to Government funding schemes for the first time, investing over £1 billion to ensure that the most vulnerable residents have safe homes. We have also ended the binary approach to remediation funding based on building height.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous with her time. Picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), a number of my constituents are stuck in blocks that are not high priority. They do not have as much cladding to be removed, but they are down the list because there are not enough skilled people to do the work—it is not always that the developers are dragging their heels; sometimes that is an issue as well. Therefore, for the sake of a small amount of work, their lives are on hold. They are unable to sell their properties and find it challenging to get a mortgage—all the issues that we know people are still facing, many years on. Could she take that away for the Department to revisit some of the priority issues and get some of those blocks that could be done quickly up the list?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that in the passage of the Bill she will see we are hoping that we can do that piece of work, because we do understand the devastating impact on people’s lives.

All buildings are now considered based on the risk presented to those living in them. As part of that, we have announced targeted funding for buildings under 11 metres with the highest risk so that the cost of fixing cladding on those buildings does not fall on the leaseholders. We will always ensure that developers pay their fair share towards making buildings safe. We have already agreed stretched targets for developers to accelerate work to assess and remediate buildings and we will hold them to account on their progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

We are working on that. PAS 9980 is the established approach used across Government remediation programmes. It provides a robust and proportionate way of identifying the risk of fire spreading through a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Angela Rayner]

I will give way one last time.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

This is a rare opportunity to get direct answers from the Secretary of State in the House. That is not a reflection on her, but that is what we are here for. I have a constituent who is an expert on fire safety. We know that the Adam Kiziak forged EWS1 form has been a real issue, and that fire safety is now considered by measures of tolerability, rather than to the set standards. I raised that in a Westminster Hall debate with the Minister for Homelessness, because it is a real concern, and the Bill does not address all of it. Is that in the Secretary of State’s mind? Will she meet interested Members of Parliament—cross-party, because a number of us have this issue—and my very able constituent, Ian Abley, who is an expert on the matter, to discuss how we can future-proof the system? We cannot afford mistakes made as we try to solve the problems of the past.

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that the remediation Bill is crucial to us meeting our ongoing challenges with the remediation acceleration plan. The relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to go through the specifics relating to fire safety and the regulations on that.

The Bill will help us complete the task of identifying all remaining buildings that require remediation. It will introduce a register of 11 to 18-metre buildings, giving Government a complete record for the first time of all medium-rise buildings in England. It will also mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation. Also, for the first time, the Bill makes it indisputable that responsible entities have to remediate building safety defects with urgency through a new legal duty to remediate. They must take action now or risk severe consequences, including criminal charges where appropriate.

It is unacceptable that enforcement is too slow and penalties are too weak to compel those responsible to act. We will give regulators the tools that they need, including the ability to issue escalating financial penalties, and to pursue criminal prosecution in the worst cases. From now on, no building and no resident will be left behind. Our new remediation backstop will allow public bodies to step in and carry out remediation work themselves. That will mean that residents have a route to remediation, even when the responsible entity is determined to ignore its duty to keep residents safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks. All of us, across the House, agree on the fundamental need to resolve this issue. As she movingly said, the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower and the resultant loss of life were horrifying. I join her in paying tribute to the victims, survivors and their friends and family.

We all agree that home is the place where people ought to feel safest. It is deeply concerning that so many people across the country still live in a home that has been rendered unsafe, and we welcome the Government’s desire to put that right. The Opposition have concerns about some of the Bill’s provisions, and about whether the proposed measures will definitely ensure that more people end up living in a safer home. I will set out some of those concerns. We look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill however we can.

Remediation of unsafe cladding is often slow because there are simply not enough qualified people to do the work. This point has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), but I will spend a moment on it. Every affected building needs a specialist assessment of its external walls, at a time when fire engineers and assessors are in short supply. Training new specialists takes years, yet the Bill does not lay out any particular plans for training those skilled professionals. Contractors face the same shortage of skilled labour and materials. Too often, owners who want to act cannot find anyone to carry out the work.

Remediation is slow because the work is complicated and unpredictable. When old cladding is removed, contractors regularly find further defects, so the scope, cost and delays grow. On top of those practical difficulties, many of the buildings concerned are part-owned by their leaseholders.

Remediation is also slow because when it comes to the practical implementation of the legal regime, the situation is fragmented. Implementation is managed building by building, and the responsibility is split between owners, managing agents, contractors and three overlapping regulators. Unsurprisingly, that drives up costs and drags out timelines, however willing the owners are. The Bill’s answer is to ask the three regulators to write a statement on how they will co-operate, which is not the same as getting the work done.

We already have evidence that a legal obligation, such as the one proposed in the Bill, does not by itself guarantee timely remediation. Developers on the developer remediation contract, which the last Conservative Government implemented so that developers, not taxpayers, would cover the cost of remediation, are already bound by equivalent requirements, which is why the Bill exempts them. The Government’s figures show that developers have finished work on only a third of their buildings, and fewer than one in four of all their buildings with life-critical defects.

Responding to the Public Accounts Committee, the National Fire Chiefs Council warned that limited workforce capacity was the primary bottleneck to remediation. The then NFCC chair, Mark Hardingham, put it best when he said that

“we cannot enforce our way out of the cladding crisis.”

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I do not want to be party political—I think we all know that this was one of the biggest failures of regulation in many generations, and it has affected many people very badly—but this is a disappointment. I wonder if the hon. Lady can reflect, as she is new to her post and new in this Parliament, on how decisions sometimes need to be made early. James Brokenshire, a previous Secretary of State—sadly, he is no longer with us—made some bold decisions in the early days after Grenfell, but then there were delays in things like getting fire safety surveyors trained up, which takes three years. If those decisions had been made earlier, we would be in a better position now. In the spirit of trying to improve things, will she reflect on why those decisions were not made and why we need to back this Government Bill to make sure that we move as fast as we can?

[Katie Lam]

I think it is fair to say that there are all sorts of ways in which the response to this appalling event and the wider questions that it raised did not happen as quickly and was not as effective as we might have liked—otherwise, we would not still be discussing it today. What is important now is that we make sure that whatever plan we come up with together, as a Parliament, is as effective as it can be to make sure that people are living in the safest possible homes. That is our responsibility now.

It should not come as a surprise that legislating to make something true does not make it so. Passing a law that says that buildings must be fixed will not create a single new fire engineer. Rather than easing those practical bottlenecks, however, the Bill too often assumes that the main blocker to timely remediation is owners deliberately choosing not to act. Our fear is that, as drafted, the Bill may risk making the problem worse.

Under the Bill, every building must be assessed within a year, and every assessment that recommends work must be audited by Homes England, drawing on the same small pool of specialists. There are owners who obstruct, and they should face the full force of the law, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I say once again that I do not doubt that the intentions behind the Bill are noble, but we must always be careful that legislation, even when drafted with the best of intentions, does not produce unintended consequences. Perhaps the clearest risk of unintended consequences comes with the proposed new legal duty. Owners could face two years in prison or penalties of up to half a million pounds for deliberately failing to remediate as soon as reasonably practicable. Those standards—“deliberately” and “as soon as reasonably practicable”—are broad and subjective, particularly given the severity of the punishments prescribed by the Bill. Given that many of the decisions about whether owners have complied with the standards will fall to the regulator, can the Government be sure that due regard will be given to the real practical hurdles to remediation? What guidance will regulators get on what counts as “reasonably practicable”?

Doubtless the Government intend for these measures to be used only in the most extreme cases of deliberate obstruction or delay, but we must be incredibly careful when designing new legal duties and criminal penalties. Like it or not, these standards will hang over owners who are attempting to act in good faith, but who are constrained by the practical difficulty of remediation.

Likewise, opening up directors to personal prosecution on grounds of neglect risks generating unintended consequences. While directors’ liability for building safety is long established, the Bill goes much further. Have the Government assessed how many capable people will simply refuse to be named as directors on remediation compliance plans? What will it do to the cost of directors’ insurance? What impact will it have on the willingness of well-run management firms to get involved in residential property? How many will conclude that it is simply no longer worth the legal risk? Have the Government assessed whether the Bill will have an impact on access to directors’ insurance more broadly, and whether it could create a disincentive to involvement in residential property by well-run management firms?

Another point of concern derives from the Bill’s approach to group accountability for parent companies and firms that are deemed to exercise control. The Bill builds on powers in the 2022 Act, but extends them from recovering costs to imposing penalties for offences. The Government must do more to explain where this stops. In 2022, Parliament let a court or tribunal look through a company’s structure where it was just and equitable to do so. The Bill will allow a regulator to adopt quasi-judicial powers and enforce large penalties in doing so.

Limited liability is an important principle that, in its modern form, has endured in this country for more than a century and a half. It encourages investment and entrepreneurship. The erosion of limited liability that the Bill represents may set a worrying precedent. Until now, Parliament has qualified the principle only through the courts. The Bill qualifies the principle through regulators rather than judges. If that is acceptable in one sector, why not in others? Even if we confine ourselves to this sector, can the Government be sure that the erosion of limited liability will not create a direct deterrent to investment in large residential properties, including build to rent? Housing in this country is far too expensive for far too many people. People must be able to trust that their homes are safe, but they also need homes to buy or rent in the first place.

Another concerning legal precedent emerges from the Bill’s provisions on retrospective liability for product manufacturers. In 2022, the previous Government gave building owners a route to claim against the manufacturers of defective cladding. The Bill goes much further. It loosens the test itself, so that a product need only have contributed “more than trivially” to a building’s being unsafe. The Government must explain why the 2022 test was not enough. Complying with the regulations in force at the time will no longer be a defence; firms that followed the rules can no longer rely on having done so.

Nobody would deny the existence of bad actors—firms that have broken the rules or falsified evidence about their own compliance. Such firms have put people in danger, and some of the consequences have been unimaginably awful. They must be punished. However, there is no reason to believe that those firms would have complied had the legal standard been tougher. The point is that firms that break the rules are going to break the rules, no matter what they are. As is so often the case, the problem is one of enforcement. However, in an effort to tackle this non-compliant minority, the Bill extends retrospective liability well beyond what Parliament agreed in 2022—something that we must always be very cautious about doing. When firms or individuals cannot be sure that complying with the law today will ensure legal safety tomorrow, their behaviour can change. They may be more reluctant to enter the market in the first place, and will certainly be more reluctant to innovate. Insurers will price in that risk, and every new home will cost more to build.

As with so many aspects of the Bill, the Government, in attempting to achieve a noble aim, risk undermining important principles. The presumption against retrospective legislation, the principle of limited liability and the principle of clear legal tests are foundational to the way in which we have designed the law in this country. Of course, we can deviate from them—in our country, Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever law it chooses—but when we do deviate, we ought to ensure that we do so with a full appreciation of the facts and implications. It ought to happen only when we can see no other way to solve the problem at hand, and only when we are sure that new legislation, rather than better enforcement or efforts to ease practical bottlenecks, is the right course of action.

I reiterate my appreciation for the intention behind the Bill. That anybody should feel unsafe in their own home because of structural or material faults is a profoundly depressing state of affairs. However, we are concerned that, in pursuing this noble aim, the Government may not have given due regard to some of the unintended consequences of the solutions they propose. As the Bill progresses, we will probe all those points and more. We look forward to working, with the same noble aim, to improve the Bill however we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Residents who raised concerns were ignored, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea made a decision to cut costs that resulted in the contract that ended up being a major contributory factor in what happened. I have not had the chance to say this on the record, but I am pleased that one of the individuals involved in that is no longer at the Barnet tenant management organisation. That decision was wrong, and it has been corrected. I am glad that that has been done.

In short, in Victoria the government stepped in and put homeowners and residents first. In this country, the previous Government took a market-based approach that has comprehensively failed to deliver remediation in a timely way. Why? It is because, for too long, the British state has been too passive in the face of this problem, relying on private developers to come up with the answers while millions of people suffer the consequences. The British state’s response to the cladding scandal has exposed many of the weaknesses that this Government want to fix: unaccountable power, opaque ownership and a shirking of responsibility; penny-wise cost cutting that stores up massive costs in the future; and a lack of public control over the basics of life, including housing.

I hope that the Bill will contribute to that effort by creating more jeopardy for those delaying remediation and more options to finally fix every building that needs it, but the work to make buildings safe must continue even while we debate the Bill. Existing powers such as remediation orders and remediation contribution orders can be useful tools if Ministers provide a hands-on grip on the crisis by co-ordinating local remediation plans, creating national standards and ensuring that tomorrow’s Budget continues to fund the Department to get the work moving now. We need belatedly to shift to a “fix first and fast” model based on risk, as the Secretary of State said, leveraging all existing avenues to get work started.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I concur with my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and to their loved ones. I remember the shock in this place when that tragedy happened.

I have a real concern about tolerability and how fire safety is assessed. This is something that built up over generations, and my hon. Friend gave a summary of it. Decisions on building safety were left to the wrong people; there was no outside inspection. Tolerability is a subjective standard, rather than a safe set of fixed standards. Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that? We need to be clear as we go forward about fixing that problem and ensuring that it is not down to individuals. Some developers cherry-pick who will assess the building safety of a block, knowing that some people will pass it when others would be more rigorous. That is not an acceptable situation.

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. At the very least, there needs to be independent scrutiny of these assessments so that people can feel reassured that someone is checking whether they pass muster. It should be about the whole of the building being made safe—I think the Secretary of State referred to that. Cladding defects are an extremely important component, but there are internal fire defects that also need to be assessed, which have contributed to rising costs.

I welcome the remediation backstop in the Bill that will give Homes England and local authorities the power to step in, but that should not only be a tool of last resort. It should be something that gets the system moving as quickly as possible, because leaseholders in particular have ended up shouldering the burden in recent years. To give one example—others have already spoken about leaseholders they represent—residents at Shaftesbury Place in Earl’s Court approached me in 2024 after receiving huge increases in their service charge, driven by a disputed fire risk assessment which led to a massive spike in insurance premiums for the building from £15,000 a year to £310,000. The following year it went to £375,000. For one leaseholder, their annual bill for the insurance went from £269 to £4,146.

The landlord, Notting Hill Genesis, which is in a shared ownership scheme, told leaseholders that the insurance rise was linked to a fire risk assessment that it had commissioned, but residents disputed it alongside the classification of the building as high-rise. In fact, it had even miscalculated the number of storeys in the building when it did the assessment, which obviously undermined confidence in that assessment. The Building Safety Regulator later agreed and removed the building from the high-rise register. Until recently, several residents were still receiving legal threats about the non-payment of those charges, causing them huge worry and anxiety—let alone their concerns about the value of their investment in the shared ownership scheme.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. The insurance issue is a big concern—it is something the Treasury Committee is looking into. Does he not agree that there is a problem with the industry? The premiums have gone up exponentially, and although there is an increased risk, the likelihood of it crystallising has not been proved to be as high as the insurance industry has said. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?

[Joe Powell]

My experience from this case corroborates what my hon. Friend says. I met the Association of British Insurers, and the scheme it introduced subsequently kicked in and has in the last year brought down the buildings insurance, but only by about half—certainly not to anywhere near what it used to be. I hope that Ministers can look at insurance when thinking about protecting leaseholders from higher costs.

The end of the story for the building is that, following pressure from me and my team and from organisers in the building, Notting Hill Genesis has finally agreed to reimburse all the residents. It will repay the difference in the increase for the past several years. I thank Thomas, Hamid, Ian and all the other residents in that building for their work. That is just one example of what is happening in building after building across the country.

I welcome the Bill in the sense that it is an opportunity to fix some of the flaws left by the previous Government and to create a better system, including through the register, a consistent approach to external walls in fire risk assessments, and by listening to campaigners across the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal, who have helped to give a voice to those most affected. I know that they will have the ear of the Secretary of State and Ministers as the Bill continues its passage.

Clearly, one element at the heart of the Bill is who should pay. I agree that it is high time that the construction product manufacturers who contributed to the cause of this crisis should pay towards resolving it. I really welcome part 5 of the Bill, which strengthens and extends provisions in the Building Safety Act on retrospective liability for cladding products, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the Government’s intention to go further. The Grenfell inquiry found that companies including Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex engaged in systematic dishonesty and deliberate manipulation of testing that misled buyers into thinking their products were safe. It is extraordinary that, aside from their payments into a civil settlement, these companies have not paid towards resolving a crisis of their making. In Arconic’s case, its civil settlement was overwhelmingly covered by its insurance and was dwarfed by the payment it made to its own shareholders in compensation.

It is clearly not right that leaseholders, taxpayers and even the developer levy should shoulder the bulk of the costs, while companies such as Arconic do not. That is yet another reason that they should be nowhere near public contracts and supply chains, especially while criminal investigations are ongoing. I know the Secretary of State is committed to working across Government to use every procurement power the Government have to ensure that that is not happening, and I will fully support her in that goal. I also look forward to the new system of construction products regulation being implemented, with consistent safety standards and a single products regulator under the Building Safety Regulator; that will make a big difference.

I am glad that protection from costs for leaseholders has been discussed in the Bill and the debate so far. They are not responsible for this crisis, yet they are the ones picking up the bill in far too many cases. I hope these new powers will give local remediation efforts such as the London Joint Remediation Partnership Board an extra tool to do the building-by-building analysis that cuts through the bureaucracy and delays to find a solution.

I am sure that the communities who have enfranchised their buildings or exercised right to manage will be really pleased to hear the announcement today on ensuring that they are protected. We want more leaseholders to take control of their buildings, appoint their own agents and run their own affairs. We will see more in the leasehold Bill soon, and it is right that the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill should provide some consistency in protecting them, too.

The building safety crisis has become one of the defining symbols of state failure in the past decade. The entirely avoidable tragedy of Grenfell and the loss of 72 lives should have been a catalyst to making buildings safe as quickly as possible and recovering the costs later. Of course, if we had listened to the coroner after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, not only may it have been possible to prevent the Grenfell fire, but we could have put a halt to new build flats across the country being constructed with cladding that was putting lives at risk. Judge Frances Kirkham said then that approved document B of the building regulations concerning external fire spread, fire-resisting properties and cladding panels should be reviewed. That simply did not happen in the way it should have done, as the public inquiry found.

That missed opportunity is devastating for the Grenfell families but it is also devastating for everyone who bought a flat across the country in a building that could have been built or refurbished differently if that recommendation had been implemented. Think of the billions of pounds wasted that could have been invested in building more homes, including social and affordable homes. That is why I will continue to campaign for a national oversight mechanism to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of recommendations of inquests and inquiries, so that change actually happens. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister are supportive of that effort, and I hope we can now make rapid progress towards setting it up.

The Prime Minister said something at the homelessness summit on Monday that really resonated with me: “names not numbers”. He was talking about how to best support people off the streets. We need a similar approach to this crisis. Behind every statistic is a family who are stuck, who cannot sell their home, who are worried about the value of their main asset and who have had to take on another job of chasing for answers about when the work will be finished, all while they suffer the anxiety of living in an unsafe building.

I hope today marks a shift in approach under a Government who I know are absolutely committed to doing all they can to end this scandal once and for all. The new tools in this Bill will certainly help, and the ones announced at the Dispatch Box today will help even further. With the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the ministerial team providing the leadership that this crisis needs, I am sure we can right the wrongs of the previous approach and deliver the solutions that so many people across the country are crying out for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

As we remember the 72 victims of Grenfell and the many who are still waiting for justice, I know the Secretary of State and Members from across the whole House share the same commitment to do right by them, to ensure such a calamity never happens again, and to do better for all the leaseholders and residents living with unsafe cladding through no fault of their own.

We need a Bill that will, once and for all, make people’s homes not just safer but as safe as their residents have a right to expect them to be. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to getting the removal of unsafe cladding urgently and by a statutory deadline, to getting remediation to the right safety standard—the one that building regulations were uprated to post-Grenfell—and to residents not having to pay a penny towards fixing a crisis not of their own making. We will look at the amendments that have just been outlined, and we look forward studying them when they come forward. Sadly, as the Bill stands it does none of those things and, because of that, it is substandard and needs radical improvement.

On the plus side, let me be clear about the positive aspects of the Bill that we support. We support the legal duty for responsible entities to remediate, including the important extension of the duty in relation to buildings of 11 to 18 metres in height. We support the stronger intervention powers for housing authorities and the regulator against the blockers, such as through remediation management orders. We support making it easier to bring claims against cladding manufacturers, and we support requirements to have fire risk assessments of external walls and associated registers.

For those reasons, we have not gone as far as tabling a fatal amendment, despite the very serious flaws, as we see them. It would be wrong to deny support to any leaseholders or residents who without this Bill would get less help, but I call on the Government to consider seriously the degree to which the Bill is lacking. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State or the Bill, the Government need to think harder and bring forward amendments that are urgently needed to strengthen the Bill. In the stages that follow Second Reading, we will be suggesting and proposing changes, and working with the Government as constructively as we can to get the improvements that we believe are necessary.

Where does the Bill fall short? First and foremost, it enshrines into law the discredited publicly available specification 9980—PAS 9980—approach. As shown in clause 44, that will allow cladding of “tolerable” risk of combustion to remain on homes after they have been remediated. One may expect “tolerable” risk to be no more than the level of risk allowed in new buildings under the building regulations, as tightened up after Grenfell, but as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has already alluded to, it is not that standard. In this Bill, remediation will be only to a standard that a fire risk assessor decides is “tolerable”. We are talking about fire risk assessors paid by building owners, who are more likely than not to have commercial interests in doing as few works as possible to their building. While I am sure that most assessors are reliable professionals, given that the Grenfell inquiry report chaired by judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick cited “commercial interests” in this area of work as one of the contributory factors to the fire, is retaining commercial interests in the system of fire risk assessment, assessors and building inspectors a risk worth taking?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman and I have common cause in this respect, and I rely on the expertise of my constituents in this matter. The PAS 9980 approach was not reassuring for insurers. There was a big problem with insurance anyway, but PAS 9980 does not solve it, because it does not give insurers the certainty they need to do the risk assessment. I am not here as an apologist for the insurance industry—in fact, there are many issues that we will be taking up with that industry—but this approach is not the answer. Given his level of deep expertise in this matter before he came to the place, what would the hon. Gentleman propose instead? Is there an amendment to the Bill that he and the Government could coalesce around and reach agreement on?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member is very kind—I am sure my experience is as great as many other Members of the House. I am coming to what we believe would be a preferable standard. Our approach is that these issues of “commercial interests” should be expunged from the Bill, and that the tolerability approach should be removed. We believe that existing homes and buildings should be remediated to meet the standard of fire safety required in the building regulations that were uprated in 2018, after Grenfell.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

One of the key pressures that we see is the revolving door of criminals being released with nowhere to go. This is about how we tackle and address the stigma with criminals coming out from prison. We are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to identify and ensure that before prisoners are released, they have somewhere safe and secure to go. Ultimately, this is about looking at where the funding is going. With regard to the right hon. Lady’s comment about the tents, I am not aware of that, but I am happy to provide her with additional information.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this statement and the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government. I note that in the Minister’s statement, she talked about the commitment being to offer everyone sleeping rough a route off the streets this Christmas. We know that during covid, some people were offered accommodation who were so used to living on the streets that they were not able to take it; in Hackney, the excellent lead on homelessness took a really pragmatic approach to dealing with that issue in the short term. Does the Minister have any idea of the percentage of people who will be affected by that issue and how they will get wraparound support if they refuse to take accommodation?

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I warmly welcome the Minister to her post. I had meetings with most of her predecessors. I do not need to keep having meetings; I just hope that she takes up the points we have raised.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on laying out the issues so clearly—as a result, I have cut my speech in half. Sadly, it is a bit like “Groundhog Day”: we have all raised these issues before. The peroration of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) summarised the complexity that the Minister and the Government have to grapple with. It is not just the Government who are part of this challenge, but they have to be part of the solution.

I will not name any of the developments that I am talking about, because my residents are very concerned about being blighted. There have been some improvements. The Building Safety Regulator is getting better and the delays have reduced, but as well as dealing with historical issues, it has to work with new developments. Hackney council has a good track record of building council housing, but some of it has been delayed by the Building Safety Regulator. I understand that the delays have now reduced substantially, but I hope the Minister will look closely at that issue in her new role to make sure the Building Safety Regulator is working as efficiently as possible.

Skills remain a big issue, and there has been a woeful lack of activity. Some of us were here in 2018 talking about training fire safety engineers. It takes three years to train them, and if anyone had done that then, we would be in a much better place now.

I also wish to mention mortgageability. As recently as 3 September, I had a letter from Baroness Blake of Leeds, repeating what I have had from Ministers of different parties over time: that there are 10 mortgage companies that will lend on property with dangerous cladding. I point that out to constituents and keep referring them to the 10 companies, but there is always a reason why it cannot happen. Those companies obviously have criteria that are often not met. If the Government are routinely sending out that sort of information, it needs to be absolutely accurate.

Insurance is a huge and ongoing problem. For two developments in my constituency, only one insurer took part in the insurance tender process—insurers are just pulling out. The Treasury Committee is keen to look at that issue, but there is a real role for the Government to play. I spoke to the Minister’s predecessors in the previous Government, but this nut has not yet been cracked. I think I speak for every Member in this Chamber when I say that we would be happy to put our weight and effort behind it to help the Minister tackle the issues with insurance companies. We cannot have properties that are effectively uninsurable and bankrupting our residents. As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, people are going into debt to pay their insurance premiums, and that is before they have a claim to make.

The lack of skilled contractors was first raised back in 2020 in a Public Accounts Committee report, when I was Chair of that Committee. We asked for work to be done, but nothing has happened.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke about tolerability. I have a very expert constituent who came to my advice surgery this summer. I am very happy to introduce the Minister to him. He has written to me and the Department a number of times, and we have had a number of exchanges about the changes in British standards since Grenfell, and specifically about building materials. Instead of having set standards, fire safety is now done on measures of tolerability. He says that there is now a scale of standards, depending on the individual who does the fire safety assessment. That is why, after the Adam Kiziak affair, in which a number of EWS1—external wall system fire review—forms were forged, other people qualified to do the EWS1 certificates came to different conclusions. Two buildings in Hackney that were tolerable were then said to have issues that require remediation.

My constituent said that insurance has become so expensive because the insurers are not certain about the standards, which will no doubt have an impact on mortgage lenders, too. The issue needs to be resolved. I say with respect to the Minister that the solution must be much more fundamental than the Government getting people in, banging heads together and saying, “Sort it out.” This is fundamental to why Grenfell happened in the first place. It was the biggest public safety failure in several generations.

The Department’s permanent secretary at the time spoke to several of her predecessors to find out who could have seen it coming. Changes happened here, there and everywhere, and no one saw what the cumulative impact would be on Grenfell—obviously, there were also other shocking aspects of the Grenfell situation. This is an opportunity for the Minister, who is a very capable woman—we are all delighted to see her in her post—to tackle this issue once and for all. It may not help our residents immediately, but it has to work for the future.

I have several simple asks. Will the Minister get working on the mortgage lender issue and make sure that we are sending out accurate information? Will she work with mortgage lenders not just to get them to sign up to a list saying that they support lending but to be really clear about the criteria that will allow them to lend? Will she look again at insurance and skills, and will she please tackle the issue of tolerability?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate.

I thank all hon. Members who are here this morning. Nine years on, a number of them have rightly raised the tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. As a London MP, I vividly remember the night of 14 June 2017. My son had been born a week earlier, on 7 June. Watching TV throughout the night was like watching a horror film with flames and black pieces, not knowing that the black pieces coming out of the building were people jumping. It is right that this House is united in continuing to scrutinise the pace of remediation and the support available to those affected.

Many residents across the country have lived with uncertainty about the safety of their homes, their financial security and their ability to move on with their lives. We recognise the impact that building safety can have not only on people’s homes, but on their wellbeing and peace of mind. Nine years on from Grenfell, we have to be honest and say that there can be no justification for unsafe buildings remaining unaddressed. Although significant progress has been made, more than 4,000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents continue to face the consequences of failures that they did not cause.

That is why this Government are committed to speeding up remediation, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of making buildings safer, and strengthening protections for leaseholders and residents. Our objective is clear: to remove barriers to remediation, speed up delivery and ensure that people can feel safe and secure in their home. Since the launch of the remediation acceleration plan, more than 420 additional buildings over 11 metres have completed cladding remediation through the Government-funded scheme and the developer remediation contract, meaning that some 35,000 more residents are now living in safer homes. The Government have approved £2.1 billion of funding for cladding remediation since the plan was launched and have committed to more than £1 billion to accelerate remediation in the social housing sector.

But we recognise that further action is needed. We are considering how we can go further to protect residents, particularly those who fall outside existing protections, and to ensure that no responsible party can avoid its obligations. That is why we will build on the foundations established by the Building Safety Act through the forthcoming remediation Bill and our wider programme of building safety reforms.

The Bill will provide greater clarity and certainty about which buildings require remediation and the standards that must be met. It will strengthen regulators’ ability to check delay and non-compliance. It will improve routes to recover remediation costs from those responsible and ensure that residents have a pathway to remediation even where responsible entities fail to act or are unable to meet their obligations. Taken together, these reforms will strengthen accountability across the system and help to ensure that buildings are made safer faster.

I turn to some specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the issue of PAS 9980. As hon. Members will know, PAS 9980 was developed by the British Standards Institution. The Government sponsored the BSI to review and update it to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and captures best practice, looking at the learnings since it was introduced in 2022.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath outlined, the BSI published an update to PAS 9980 yesterday. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. PAS 9980 provides an industry-wide accepted methodology to enable qualified and experienced assessors to undertake the fire risk appraisal of external walls. It provides a consistent and proportionate building-specific approach to risk assessments and helps to achieve the right solutions for each building, keeping residents safe while preventing unnecessary and disruptive works. As the update highlights, it has improved the clarity of the structure and usability of PAS 9980, with the aim of achieving greater transparency and consistency by assessors. It does not, however, materially change how risks are assessed, so fire risk appraisals of external walls undertaken using a previous version of PAS 9980 will remain valid. Government remediation programmes require that fire risk appraisals of external walls be undertaken using this methodology.

To further safeguard quality and ensure consistency in assessments, the remediation Bill will mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to align with our best practice remediation programmes and ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation work. It will also establish mandatory auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls in law. This requirement will reinforce trust in both the assessors and the outcomes. I hope that that helps to reassure hon. Members.

Several right hon. and hon. Members rightly mentioned the issue of fire risk assessors. Fire risk assessors perform a critical safety role, and it is essential that they are fully compliant and competent. We have therefore accepted the full recommendation in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report for mandatory certifications of fire risk assessors. To meet the recommendation, we intend to bring into law mandatory compliance requirements for fire risk assessors to perform that vital role, subject to parliamentary approval and timescale.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I welcome that step, but what the Minister says suggests it is some way off. Can she give some indication of the timescale for getting mandatory licensing in place?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I agree that many people will continue to question when the fire risk assessors will be in place. The Government recently launched a public consultation on the proposal to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistently high levels of competency, whereby trust is rebuilt and a strong and diverse pipeline of talent comes forward to ensure that fire safety standards are met. We are currently analysing all the consultation responses, and the Government will publish a full response later this autumn, so hopefully my hon. Friend will not have to wait much longer.

We recognise the additional pressures on building control and fire engineer capacity across the country. We have established the independent building control panel and the fire engineers advisory panel to examine the issues and provide recommendations on strengthening the system. The Government are committed to working with the BSR on long-term reform and exploring options for a more efficient building control system. Any future changes will be developed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

We all want to see stronger and better building control, but local authorities have been hollowed out. We have lost a lot of experienced planners and there is not always a pipeline coming through with the necessary experience. Can we lobby the Treasury for support for local government in that respect?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend will know that I will definitely continue to lobby Treasury colleagues very hard, and any help from colleagues around the House will be helpful. In the meantime, the current system includes a new initiative looking at digital building control programmes. I can confirm that over £45 million has been invested in growing the workforce to help to address the key issue of capacity, streamline the process and support development. More is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the continuing financial strain felt by so many innocent leaseholders. They see their insurance premiums going through the roof, in some cases paying more than for their mortgages. In the remediation acceleration plan, the Government have committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings that are undergoing remediation.

To strengthen the evidence base, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the remediation programme insurance survey, a UK-wide survey of buildings in Government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive dataset collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2,000 buildings undergoing remediation. The evidence is informing ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses. The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the multi-occupancy building insurance market, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps.

The Government are also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions, which can be opaque and excessive, from being passed on by freeholders and managing agents as freeholders’ expenses, and to replace such arrangements with fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure. Alongside that, we will introduce through secondary legislation a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including in respect of the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements among landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What support her Department is providing to councils to help them use their housing revenue account to build council houses.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of housing revenue account debt on the ability of local authorities to maintain and increase council housing stock.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

We recognise that many councils are facing significant financial pressure on their HRAs. The Government have already taken a number of steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including fundamental reform of the right to buy scheme, a 10-year social housing rent settlement and social rent convergence. We will continue to explore further ways in which we might support councils to expand their stock of social homes, including low-cost borrowing options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My right hon. Friend is aware of the challenges with housing in my constituency and across London. Every home built that provides a foundation for people’s lives saves the state money as well, given the temporary accommodation costs that are saved when people are able to get that foundation in life. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to talk to Treasury colleagues about how to look at those maths, to make sure we understand that tackling issues with debt can save money in the long term? I recognise that it might be a long haul, but will he promise to start?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of building more homes in London—I am acutely aware of the housing delivery challenges that the capital is facing. It is really important that a big proportion of those homes are social rented homes and council-delivered social rented homes. I am really pleased that in the early years of the social and affordable homes programme, 30% of the funding will go to London. That will allow London to deliver at least £6 billion of initial allocations, over half of which will be for council housing. However, there is more we need to do in this area, and I am more than happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber about what that is.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Member for his fair and reasonable question. The Government consider the intervention on ground rents that we are making through this draft Bill to be a justified and proportionate approach to the specific problems that leaseholders face as a result of high and harmful ground rents. We are introducing the reforms to deliver on specific commitments in our manifesto and in the context of a significant number of wider reforms to the leasehold market. We have carefully weighed the different options to meet our manifesto commitment on ground rents and we have taken investors’ concerns into account when developing the policy, which we believe strikes a fair balance between leaseholders, freeholders and those invested in ground rents. We recognise that the reforms will have a significant impact on freeholders and investors, but we consider this a justified and proportionate response.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should first declare that I am a leaseholder. I welcome very warmly the Minister’s statement, particularly the measure on commonhold, which is something that we Co-op MPs have been campaigning on for a long time. We also welcome that the cap on ground rents is in sight. There are issues in my constituency relating to the fact that a lot of my leaseholders are shared owners. Could the Minister tell us now—or write to me with the details—how shared ownership might be impacted by the changes? Could he also reassure us, given the complexities, that there will be some Government support, such as an advice hub or something to point people in the right direction, when it comes to how people will move from where they are to commonhold?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend about the issue of shared ownership specifically. She will know that through our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, we are making improvements to shared ownership as a tenure model. More widely, I can assure her that the provisions in the draft Bill will benefit leaseholders in her constituency in the way that she makes clear. I am happy to have a further conversation with her about how the reforms will benefit her constituents and what advice leaseholders can draw on, including the Government-backed Leasehold Advisory Service.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.

Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.

As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.

As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.

Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.

Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.

That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.

Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.

We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.

I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.

Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.

Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.

If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.

In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.

It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.

In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.

The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.

Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On the losses to the council, does my hon. Friend recognise that for many councils the costs of additional street cleaning, refuse collection, signage and lighting all add up when an event is granted a temporary licence, and for many councils there is no compensation for that?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I absolutely understand and support the Government’s approach to supporting businesses, but good businesses are not supported if the fees for temporary events notices and other licences do not keep up with inflation. Where there is a flood of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, it causes a huge burden on the local authority, for which it is not funded. In fact, in Hackney there is an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone.

We need enough fees for enforcement while not overburdening business—we have to get that balance right. The best businesses will understand the costs of enforcement, refuse collection and the other issues related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, and will see the importance of that balance being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

We are now creating combined authorities in lots of rural county areas. In Committee, I urged the Minister, first, to say that we need community buy-in to do that, and secondly, to provide me with good examples of where we have created such county combined authorities from a number of towns that do not interlink. I completely understand how devolution works in this country when there is a strategic centre and everyone uses the same services, which is why our amendments are so important. They would allow us to have a referendum and take all communities within a county together. In my Broxbourne constituency in the county of Hertfordshire, our towns do not necessarily all interlink. It is vital that we have a referendum on combined authorities. If we do not get the buy-in and take the whole community with us, we will not get this right and it will not be a success.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Member, who is making some interesting points. On his point about a referendum, the balance of numbers in a villages-versus-conurbation vote means that there might well be an obvious outcome to such a referendum. We have seen really good work in devolution in Greater Manchester. Previously disconnected towns and villages—terrible for young people trying to get to education and for people trying to get to work—have benefited from improved transport, thanks to a desire to see the region as part of an overall whole without damaging the character of those towns and villages.

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point with which I have great sympathy. We have to try to take different communities together, but we should not compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns that are not interlinked naturally by roads and railways or by people’s jobs. Lots of my constituents work in London and would never, or hardly ever, make the journey of about an hour along the A414 to Watford or Hemel Hempstead. The situation is very different. I can understand how devolution works when there is a single city centre and why in some respects it works in our towns and city regions where there is a single space, but I do not understand how it will work in practice when there are a number of towns all of the same size.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession: I was not on the Bill Committee. It sounds like I missed out, according to some of the descriptions of the fun that was had. It is not the first time I have heard that a Bill Committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.

Many of us across the House had extensive experience in local government prior to entering this place—I had 10 years’ experience of local government in a London borough—and will all have seen the fantastic role that local government can play, connecting communities, responding to concerns, and understanding, often before national Government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. However, as well as seeing that potential, those of us who served in local government will often have seen it held back and felt frustration at communities lacking powers and often funding to respond to social and economic challenges.

Our country differs greatly: local areas and communities are not all the same and they face different challenges. My Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency in Hillingdon in west London is very different from the constituencies of and challenges faced by many other hon. Members. It is right that cities, areas and regions of our country have the ability and the powers, and the funding when necessary, to respond to those issues.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one elected Mayor of London, whose post was created 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Does he agree that, being strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner-city London borough such as mine in Hackney and one such as his in outer London, through measures such as the Superloop? I am sure my hon. Friend has other examples of how a mayor can serve all communities while having a strategic view of the whole.

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. We should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible. Clearly, some powers have to be exercised in this place, at national level, and also at regional level it makes sense to act, and the mayor rightly has the ability to co-ordinate our transport system in London. We do not want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure such as our tube network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

Communities in Cornwall, Dorset and Devon, in common with many in London, have experience of the overnight stay and tourist economy, and of the impact on local communities. They know about the powers, budgets and fiscal freedoms that councils and mayors have to respond to the issues. I agree that the levy should be charged per night of travel. One challenge that I have often heard is that if the levy were to apply to the hotel sector or formal visitor stay sector only, and not to the informal sector or the short-term let sector, that might disadvantage important businesses, jobs and institutions, and not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London, and in places like that represented by my hon. Friend.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Talking of the informal economy, Airbnb is a big issue in London. The old-style Airbnb, in which you simply stayed with somebody, has been overtaken, and people are now purchasing flats just to let them out through Airbnb. I believe Airbnb is within the scope of the Bill, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about how this issue should be captured? There are whole developments near my constituency that have been bought just to be let through Airbnb, but we desperately need that housing. We want the levy, which could increase income for councils, but we also need the homes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree that that is an issue. As my hon. Friend points out, the short-term let sector is included in the amendment, although I do not think that the amendment will be enough to regulate the short-term let sector more generally; that is a slightly separate matter. The previous Government’s deregulation in this area, with the 90-day rule, has not worked in practice. We all know that, and it has impacted our communities. Lots of data and evidence has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and are now used as professional tourism accommodation. While that is good for the tourist economy, it is bad for our local housing system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

In my constituency, as well as in Camden, Islington, Southwark and other inner-London boroughs, schools are closing, apparently partly because of short-term lets. This does not apply so much in my constituency, but in some areas, the homes are there, but people do not live in them full time, or sometimes at all. Families do not stay there. That has a detrimental impact on the ability of our schools to stay open.

[Danny Beales]

My hon. Friend describes perfectly the impacts that we see. Even in outer London and Hillingdon, we see the impact of the short-term let sector. We see it near Heathrow, which is very proximate to my constituency.

New clause 31 would enable differential charging. It does not mandate what the charges would be, or that one charge would apply to all sectors, so there would be the potential to charge the informal short-term let sector more per night or day than the formal stay sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

HMOs are an increasing challenge in all our constituencies—certainly in my own—and they are a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing family homes and selling out rooms—they are even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds—is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes we need.

I welcome the Government’s measures to address the root cause of the problem, but in immediately responding to those concerns I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils have some powers—my own council is reluctantly and eventually getting around to consulting on those proposals after many months—but we need to enable councils to go further and act faster and not have to consult as quickly, or at least to speed things up by allowing shadow licensing conditions before or while consulting.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I cannot help but note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) was concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, which is not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need new homes because individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes? Does he also agree that there may be a contradiction in what the hon. Member for Broxbourne has just said?

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.

Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.

I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What steps he is taking to support people out of temporary accommodation.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

Our Labour Government will build the homes that Britain needs and put our country on a path to end homelessness for good, unlike the Tories, who—if people have not heard us say this already today—allowed homelessness and rough sleeping to double. We will publish the child poverty strategy and the homelessness strategy shortly, and both will set out steps to defend families against the risk of getting stuck in temporary accommodation.

[Alison McGovern]

That is a very important point: London is a fine city, but we need to ensure that everyone there is housed well. That is why the Labour Government are investing more than £1 billion in homelessness services this year—an increase of more than £300 million. That includes £10.9 million of top-up funding, announced last month, to increase access to support services in areas with the highest number of children in temporary accommodation, like the one mentioned by my hon. Friend. We have to get everybody in this country properly housed.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As the Minister says, we do need that housing. There are some solutions locally, where Education or Health land has become available. Will she undertake to talk to those Department—I can talk to her in more detail about local issues—to ensure that that land can be released as soon as possible, with the prospect of it becoming social housing for local families?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. She knows that the Secretary of State has taken recent steps to make sure that we do build homes, including social and affordable homes, in London. We will certainly work very closely with her, and with the information she mentions, to get homes built.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.

I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.

More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.

We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.

The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.

On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees

“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.

Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?

House Building: London

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

No, the other one: the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). That meant that whole sites in London were not developed to provide housing when they should have been.

Clearly we have a serious problem here. In my constituency, there is a planning application that has been outstanding, after having been reviewed at various times, for nearly 10 years. It would provide housing units that we desperately need, but the housing association refuses to develop it. It is now trying to sell the site again to further developers.

Our other problem in London is where developments have taken place. There have been developments such as Battersea power station, around Wembley stadium and other areas where housing has gone up, but that housing has not been sold to local people; it is been sold to developers or owners abroad, then rented out at exorbitant cost to local London people, who then have to apply for housing benefit and depend on welfare payments rather than having a home of their own. We have to conquer this.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about overseas sales, although I would contest his statement that people are having to receive housing benefit to live in many of those developments because, as he probably knows, they are advertised overseas by yield. We are seeing homes in London as financial investment vehicles for people who have no connection with this country. Many of those landlords have never even visited the property. What would his party’s policy be to tackle this issue?

[Bob Blackman]

I do not speak on behalf of my party; I speak on my own behalf. As the hon. Lady well knows, I have been promoting building 90,000 socially rented homes a year across the country, and for the past 30 years Governments of all persuasions have failed to build the homes that we need at the prices that people can afford.

The sad reality is that we have to look at how we are going to deal with this. We could deal with the Transport for London land. TfL owns huge amounts of unused land that could be developed for housing, and that could be done in co-operation with City Hall, but the sad fact is—[Interruption.] Government Members need to focus on this: not only was Sadiq Khan as mayor given the money that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned, but he returned it to the Treasury; he could not spend it because he could not get development under way.

We have to look at what we are going to do across the House to make sure that houses are being built in London. I hope that we are not going to reduce the safety requirements for these buildings. That would be a disaster—we know of the terrible tragedy that happened in Grenfell. We should not even contemplate moving away from what has been done to protect people. Lessening those protections would be a mistake in many ways.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. How are the Government going to ensure that the affordable homes that we need in London are provided when the restrictions have been removed and developers are therefore less likely to build affordable housing that we need? Before agreeing to this decision, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact it will have on those on the affordable housing waiting lists in London? That is a real crisis, and London councils right now are in desperate need of more finance to build more housing. There are possibilities to develop the brownfield sites that TfL and the Government own, but that is being restricted. There is a solution that we could advance. We hope the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, can influence the Mayor of London to make that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on securing this debate on such a vital issue. I echo many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Her neighbouring constituency now includes a ward that used to be in my constituency—a ward where house prices are reaching £2.5 million to £3 million in some cases. That is one end of the scale.

At the other end of the scale we have a homelessness situation that is intolerable, with thousands of people on the waiting list. Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, every week I visit people in their homes, which is something that MPs do. We see people where they live, with the problems they have: triple bunk beds with little space for the third child to get into bed; five people in a room; and toddlers with no space to run around. I could give a different example every week, but a real one. This is what we need to resolve, so I welcome the Government’s plan to build more homes.

There are a lot of challenges. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the “brownfield first” approach as a priority. There are plenty of brownfield sites in my constituency. I say “plenty” but, like the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, my constituency is very small in relative terms but expensive to build on.

House prices in Hackney are 18.5 times average income, so all the young professionals who might want to get on the housing ladder are stuck in shared accommodation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, and families are stuck in social housing, crowded and unable to go anywhere else because they cannot afford private rent, which gives no security anyway. Homeless families are increasingly in hostels for years. Only six years or so ago it would have been about six months before people had a chance of getting some sort of property, and now people are being moved out of the borough, wrecking their lives and opportunities.

We have 3,400 homeless households in temporary accommodation, which is a big issue for us all and costs the taxpayer a lot of money. It does damage to the families and the children’s opportunities. It breaks our communities, and all taxpayers have to fund that, so we need to resolve it. We have a total of 8,500 households on the council’s housing register, and the notional wait for a three-bedroom property is over a decade—it is a nonsense wait, because by that time the children have grown up. Around 44% of Hackney residents live in social housing. We have more private renters than homeowners and that level of social housing residents. Even though house prices are going up for some, the housing situation is worsening for many others.

Hackney council has been great at delivering properly affordable social housing. Affordable homes, which include both social rented and intermediate, make up 57% of council housing-led delivery. In crude terms, if Hackney council wants to build a home because of the land value, which I will touch on, it has to build one for private sale to pay for the one that is for intermediate or social rent. When I say to people, “We are working hard to get you a house,” they look at the houses I am pointing to on the neighbouring bit of land and say, “Will I get one of those?”, and I cannot, hand on heart, say that they will within any reasonable period of time. The devastation this is having is surely feeding into our special educational needs and health crises. It is just not long-term sustainable.

Since 2022, the current council period since the last council elections and between now and next April, 956 council homes for social rent have been in design, planning or acquisition or under construction. It is cheaper to buy back a leasehold property on a council estate than it is to build new, because it costs £450,000 in Hackney to build a new social rented home. It is no wonder we are having challenges delivering and no wonder that the Government and the Mayor of London are trying to work out a way to get more homes built. If they are all for private rent, we are going to exacerbate the problem, so we need to work that out. Construction costs are now around £5,000 per square metre compared with £1,000 to £1,500 a decade ago. That is being led by a number of issues globally, including Brexit, but this is the reality we are dealing with. When I looked at this in my previous role on the Public Accounts Committee, the Government’s own figures showed—I am sure the Minister is aware—that bricks and mortar subsidies offered the best value for money for the taxpayer to try to resolve the problem.

We need things not just on brownfield but on grey belt. I do think that the green belt has some grey belt —we need to be realistic about this. Bits of old car park that no one is using could be turned into homes. We need to be creative when looking at this.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about grey belt. I completely understand her example of a car park, but grey belt needs much clearer definition, because we are seeing cases of development that inspectors are now saying is grey belt when it is actually greenfield, and that is really damaging to our communities.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

That is a fair challenge, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up. It is important that we all know where the goal posts are.

I would like to ask the Minister about the release of public land. This is something that I have looked at over the years. Whether it is the Ministry of Defence, Transport for London or the Department of Health and Social Care, the Treasury has, over many Governments, insisted that that money goes back to the Department. On one level, that is completely logical, but looking at hospitals or schools, if that land could be used for housing, it would help teachers, nurses or doctors to live locally.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I have long campaigned on that issue. I have a disused police station in my constituency, in Teddington, and we want to turn it into a GP surgery and social housing. I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that public sector sites are redeveloped for public good. Unfortunately, I have had no response from the Minister. Does the hon. Lady agree that that would be a good amendment to make?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I also recognise that there are financial challenges with the Treasury signing a fairly blank cheque to say that all public land could become housing. We need to be creative about this, and that is where we need a mixture of local knowledge and some flexibility from the Treasury. For example, the change of use of school sites was quite gummed up in the Department for Education under the previous Government. We need to make sure that any change of use can be dealt with relatively quickly. It will be better for health and education outcomes if we use that land for other things.

We need a national mission on housing, and I applaud the Minister for leading on that. Does he have any plans to limit further overseas purchasers buying these properties? It is great for developers, because they get that cash in, but we need to prioritise local people, and tax does not seem to be doing it. Does he have any thoughts about restricting Airbnb? I know well the blocks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury was talking about, because during covid, people paid rent to go to those places to isolate, but they were not proper homes. That is having a devastating effect on school numbers across London. Could the Minister look at the costs of building? The long-term costs of not doing it will be enormous, and we need to support those families who desperately need social rented housing.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I ask our last three speakers to stick to their five minutes.

Property Service Charges

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is nice to have his name on the record.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for bringing the topic to the House’s attention. In my constituency, this is rapidly becoming one of the most frequently raised issues. The biggest problem is that people who have worked hard, saved responsibly and bought a home in good faith find themselves trapped in a system that is opaque, unaccountable, and, in the worst cases, exploitative.

Like other Members, since being elected I have been inundated with complaints about one company in particular. We all know its name: FirstPort. It is, by some distance, the most problematic housing management company operating in my constituency. My office is dealing with almost 40 open cases relating to developments that it manages. The stories are depressingly consistent: residents describe unexplained charges, unclear billing and long delays in resolving the simplest issues—we have heard many such examples today. They send long chains of unanswered emails. They attend my surgeries exhausted and frustrated. When my team contacts FirstPort on residents’ behalf, we often wait an unacceptable length of time for a reply, and progress—if it comes at all—is slow.

Earlier this year, I and other Members of this House met FirstPort’s managing director. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you see me as a chilled-out kind of guy, but I left that meeting with my blood boiling, and other Members had a similar experience. We asked straight- forward questions but received vague answers, rehearsed corporate language and no clear commitment to improving customer service. A group of MPs will meet FirstPort again soon, and I hope that the company has set to work in earnest. On reflection, what angered me most was that many of the people caught up in these issues are elderly. They feel intimidated by the complexity of the system. They are passed from pillar to post, ignored when they raise legitimate concerns, and made to feel like an inconvenience simply for asking what their money is being spent on.

However, when FirstPort wants payment—this is something that it is very good at—its communication becomes clear and very persistent. When residents in several developments tried to move away from FirstPort, essential financial documents, including sinking fund balances and reconciliation statements, were withheld. In some cases, large sums of residents’ money were retained for months, preventing new management companies from planning maintenance or accounting properly. In my constituency, local resident directors Karen Wheeler and David Buller—fierce campaigners—have documented delayed fund transfers, missing paperwork and opaque accounting.

Karen eventually gave up trying to reconcile the final balance because the spreadsheets were, in her words, “unfathomable”. For Karen’s development, the cost was about £500—quite a significant sum for many elderly residents—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate rightly said, the real issue here is the power imbalance. Residents have no transparency, no clarity and no meaningful route to resolution, despite FirstPort’s own code of conduct, which promises transparency, value for money and excellent customer service. I think we can all agree that that does not stack up.

This is neither an isolated concern nor a partisan one. Former Ministers have highlighted FirstPort and other companies being consistently associated with high charges and poor service. The BBC has reported homeowners being billed for things such as “terrorism insurance”, without any context, while basic grounds maintenance is not completed. More than 30 MPs have written jointly to FirstPort demanding action.

We all know that the problem is structural. Far too many homeowners are locked into contracts they never chose, are forced to pay service charges for poorly maintained communal areas, and have no ability to change providers when the services fail. As we have heard, many homeowners on private estates—the so-called “fleecehold” estates—are effectively paying twice: once through council tax, and once through service charges. Leaseholders trying to sell their homes frequently face long delays and eye-watering administration fees, and what should be a proud milestone—owning or selling a home—becomes a source of stress and financial burden.

We have heard that legal protections exist, but they are not enough. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will bring mandatory transparency—

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Reed]

I have one minute left and I will make my final points. The Act aimed to bring mandatory transparency, through standardised billing, greater rights to challenge charges, and easier routes to taking over management, but those reforms are not yet implemented. Why is that? I hope that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will set out a course for when those measures will be implemented, and will say what new legislation will be brought in to ensure that people are protected. I finish on a point on which I think we all agree: residents who are on these schemes do not need more consultations; they need action, and this Parliament must deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Many Members have raised the issue of the adoption of roads. Obviously, physical roads are easier to define, but there are parts of private estates that are only for that estate. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a challenge, given the current financial situation, because it usually costs councils money to adopt a road, and under the current law, it could be a big hit for those leaseholders to pay the fee up front for the council to adopt the road?

[Sam Carling]

My hon. Friend makes a very useful point. I should have clarified that the figure I gave does not include the private roads that were not supposed to be adopted; it was purely the ones that are having this issue.

As my hon. Friend says, councils are in a difficult financial situation. The precarious state of local government finances after 14 years of cuts and freezes certainly has not helped. We also have a lot of councils blaming developers and developers blaming councils, and there is an increasing divergence between what council planning departments are requiring to grant permission for development and what the highways departments of said councils are willing to adopt. That is particularly vexing when there is a two-tier system, with planning at one level and highways at another. I hope local government reorganisation will help with that, but it is happening in unitary authorities too, and we need to explore ways to deal with that.

Ultimately, these are symptoms of a wider issue in how the system treats freeholders and leaseholders alike. The leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will be a vital step forward. I am pleased the Government are committed to ending leasehold for new developments. From my experience, that change cannot come soon enough. A key advantage of commonhold becoming the default tenure is that managing agents will be appointed by and responsible to leaseholders, rather than absentee corporate freeholders. Of course, the situation with managing agents still needs to be improved, and I am very supportive of mandatory regulation as a core step towards that, which I hope the Minister will comment on.

This debate comes in a week of real progress: the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has become law, finally giving tenants the fair treatment they deserve. Let’s keep up that progress, because nobody should have to pay through the nose for poor service, broken promises and a system that puts profit before residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point in standing up for his constituents. This is an important point. All MPs across the House have probably attended such meetings, and these companies are unable to answer the most basic questions. They are paid considerable amounts of money, and they cannot answer simple questions from constituents about how much money they will have to pay, where the liability sits, and what work they are going to do.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I do not know the case the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but I agree that good communication is important. However, it was his Government, under Margaret Thatcher, who introduced the right to buy. That means we have leaseholders mixed with council tenants, so where a council has to improve a property, it needs to go to the leaseholders for their share of the costs. There was always going to be a tension there, and he must acknowledge that that will be a reality where we have pepper-potted estates—notwithstanding that he obviously needs to fight for proper information for his constituents.

[Lewis Cocking]

I fully support the right to buy, which was a good policy—[Interruption.] I am just stating that it was a good policy and I supported that. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about communication, which must be there. As I have mentioned, Enfield council does not collect a sinking fund, which can go some way towards mitigating some of the issues, as she and I have raised, with leaseholders being asked to stump up for large bills. We need more transparency and better regulation, and we must ensure—here I agree with hon. Members across the Chamber—that councils adopt outside amenity spaces.

We need real improvements in the way that leaseholders are treated. Abolishing ground rent is a good first step and the Government need to get on with delivering that. I also agree that commonhold must be more widespread, but is by no means a silver bullet or right for everyone. I urge the Government to get on with it, improve the lives of hundreds of my constituents, and urgently implement more of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We must get on with those improvements and help hundreds of our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare an interest as a leaseholder myself.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), I will not name any managing agent or developments, because many of my residents are concerned that if their block is named, it will cause them very big issues. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) that there are some good management companies, because the picture is certainly mixed in my patch. The company that has been named often in this debate manages some estates in my area, and some are better run than others. A lot seems to depend on the individual property manager and how they run their development, and the size and age of a development definitely has an impact.

In the short time that I have, I will raise a couple of important issues. One is about insurance. We know that costs went up post Grenfell because insurance moved from insuring just the floor that a flat is on to the entire block, but other increases have arisen that are difficult to explain, and there is a danger that we will struggle to get insurance. One block in my patch was able to get one insurer quote for 12 months only, and it was quoted an extortionately high excess rate at the beginning—somewhere in the region of £15,000. That was the excess that the housing association freeholder would have to pay before anything happened. It managed to get that down, but it could only get one 12-month period of insurance.

I think we need to be careful in our discussions about the relationship between insurance companies and managing agents. I know from my role as Chair of the Treasury Committee that there are very strict rules on ringfencing operations, so insurance companies and managing agents should not have a cosy relationship. In law, they are not entitled to do so.

[Sam Carling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue on the Treasury Committee. In my speech, I raised an insurance issue that my constituents have gone to the Financial Ombudsman Service about, but they are having problems about whether it is a FOS issue or a property ombudsman issue, and it is just not very clear. Would she join me in calling for more clarity?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need clarity on this issue. We are talking a lot about service charges, but the insurance industry has a responsibility because it accounts for a large chunk of them. Regulators have a clear role to play, and it is important that that is considered in all the changes we are discussing.

I am pleased that the Government have been consulting on these issues. The consultation on service charges ended in February, so I hope the Minister can give us an update about it. It is important to touch on a couple of other issues. We know that poor maintenance leads to high costs, so standards and expectations should be set on maintenance, which costs leaseholders, but costs them less in the long run if things are maintained. That is a repeated theme across my constituency, as some very modern blocks have not been maintained properly, which means leaseholders end up paying more in the end than they should have done.

There is also an issue with greening blocks. I have constituents working very effectively to try to get electric vehicle charging points and better insulation in a block that is an old warehouse; the famous loft apartments were very popular in my constituency at one point. However, improving such things creates betterment, which increases the ground rent, because the owner of the building can say it is an improvement and can charge more. Such tenants are making their property greener, cleaner and more efficient—costing them less in a lot of ways—but they are ending up with their costs being put up somewhere else, which seems to be a complete imbalance that we have not discussed.

On the right to manage and commonhold—I am a Labour and Co-op MP, and I am very proud to be pushing for commonhold—there can be issues where there is a right to manage. I am working with a development where there is a right-to-manage company, but the directors have hidden themselves away and are not acting responsibly in answering and providing information to their neighbours in the development. I think governance needs an overhaul in this area. It is not going to solve everything if residents take over the management but then do not do a good job, so there needs to be transparency all round.

As we know, this is on top of increased mortgage charges, and let us not forget what the 2022 Budget did to mortgage charges. Shared owners are paying mortgages, rents and service charges, and this is all adding to the cost of living and causing huge upset, on top of the spending on building safety requirements that are hitting so many of my constituents. That is causing real problems, but we need to be clear, so rather than go through the list myself, I will endorse all the asks that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) listed about transparency, openness and getting clearer rights for residents to challenge service charges and to make sure they absolutely understand why they are being charged such fees. That is the basic minimum, but we should be making sure it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I won’t. I am more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman about this issue, as I do on a regular basis, and pick up these exchanges, but I want to make a bit of progress.

Lastly, the fragmentation of management on many of these estates compounds the problems we experience. Even on relatively new developments, homeowners often have to deal with multiple management companies, each levying fees in ways that reduce transparency and increase the risk of exploitation. In those situations, home- owners understandably often feel misled and trapped.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will not give way any further. There is another debate to follow and I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is worth saying that the Competition and Markets Authority published a study of the house building industry last year. It recommended stronger protections for homeowners and called for the mandatory adoption of certain amenities on new estates and, crucially, common adoptable standards for those amenities. The Government’s response to that report accepted many of its recommendations in principle, but acknowledged that further work is required.

I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely. As I set out in my written ministerial statement of November 2024, we will consult this year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders.

On that point, I say to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed)—I congratulate him on the birth of his child—that I must gently push back on his assertion that we do not need to consult. Through the consultation responses that we are receiving on issues such as service charge protections, we are gathering a huge amount of information that will allow us to implement these changes effectively, to the lasting benefit of leaseholders.

It is also vital that homebuyers understand what will happen to the estate that they are moving into. The Government are currently consulting on guidance to support estate agents with their legal responsibility to provide potential buyers with relevant material information during property transactions, as well as consulting on what should be considered material information for buyers. The Government also want to empower home- owners who are already living on estates under these arrangements. In September this year, the Law Commission published its 14th programme of law reform, which included a project on the management of housing estates. It will consider how residents could be given greater control over the management of their housing estates. My Department is proud to be the sponsoring Department for the project.

In the short term, it is imperative that we protect residential freeholders on privately managed estates from unfair charges. As hon. Members will be aware, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains provision for a new regulatory framework, broadly mirroring the rights already enjoyed by leaseholders and designed to give residential freeholders new consumer protections. We intend to consult again this year on how to implement those new protections to ensure that the framework is effective, but I want to assure hon. Members that I am determined to bring them into force as quickly as possible.

Many hon. Members mentioned service charges in a wider sense, and it is right that they champion the cause of leaseholders in their constituencies. As I have made clear on many occasions in this House, this Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. I reiterate the Government’s firm view that overcharging through service charges is completely unacceptable. In July this year we consulted on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges. We also consulted on proposals to introduce a fairer litigation costs regime, helping leaseholders to challenge service charges and protecting them from disproportionate legal expenses. The consultation included proposals on mandating reserve funds and reforming the major works process. As I have said, we have received a huge amount of useful feedback from the consultation, which closed on 26 September. I assure hon. Members that the stories I have heard today will inform my thinking on how the Government respond in due course.

On that point, let me say briefly that I would welcome correspondence from my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) with some further details about why judgments of the tribunal are not being enforced in the cases that they raised.

Before I conclude my remarks, I must address the legitimate concerns that have been raised in respect of the performance of managing agents, both on freehold estates and in leasehold blocks. We know that there are good managing agents who work hard to ensure that the residents they are responsible for are safe and secure, and that homes are properly looked after, but we also know that far too many leaseholders suffer from poor practice at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents.

I heard so many references to FirstPort during the debate that while I was sitting on the Front Bench I asked my private office to send a request to its managing director asking that he come and meet me so that I can convey some of the concerns that have been raised. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as we transition toward commonhold, so it is essential that we strengthen their regulation to drive up the standard of their service.

As hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulate the property agent sector in 2018. They asked a working group, chaired by Lord Best, to advise them on how to do it. Yet they failed to respond to the group’s final report, published in July 2019. This Government have engaged seriously and constructively with the findings set out in that report, and we have already taken forward a number of its recommendations. In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections from charges and services, which I referenced earlier, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England, but that is not the final step in this process, and we will set out our full position on regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course.

To conclude, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters, I thank all Members who have participated in the debate today for sharing their concerns and insights, and—I say this genuinely—I very much look forward to further engagement with right hon. and hon. Members as the Government continue to implement the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute, and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good in this Parliament, and not least the ambitious draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which we will publish before the end of the year.