English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Anna Dixon and Joe Powell

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.

To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.

[Anna Dixon]

As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.

I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.

For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.

Property Service Charges

Debate between Anna Dixon and Joe Powell

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate. I know that leaseholders across the country will be watching this debate very closely, because the cost of being a leaseholder has contributed to the cost of living challenges that so many of our constituents have faced for such a long time.

My leaseholder action group in Kensington and Bayswater, which the Minister kindly met with recently, regularly shares stories of escalating, unaccountable and untransparent service charges levied by managing agents that they have no control over. At worst, the current system can represent a cartel, with a broken market in which competition between managing agents is undermined by monopoly-type relationships with some freeholders and a broken connection between those who pay the bills and those who deliver the services.

The impact can be devastating. One of my constituents, Adriana, has taken her housing provider to tribunal three separate times simply to get clarity on how her service charge was calculated. Each time she has won, but the housing provider is still not providing the information; indeed, it is now offering to withdraw all the charges, rather than provide that information. That is not transparency: it relies on the assumption that the other residents, many of whom are elderly or financially strained, will not have the resources to challenge. Rather than giving up, Adriana now supports other residents in helping them to understand their rights and how to contest these unfair practices. Her determination is admirable, but it should not fall to residents themselves to protect one another from a system that is supposed to protect them.

Another group of residents who speak to me regularly about these issues, who live in a building called Shaftesbury Place, have been hit with crippling increases to their charges after a 2,489% increase in their building insurance premium. That annual cost, which is up from £15,000 to £375,000 a year, has been passed directly to the leaseholders through their service charges. The housing provider says that the freeholder procured the insurance—the residents have seen evidence suggesting otherwise—but the confusion over who procured the insurance and how the premium was calculated has left leaseholders caught in the middle. The justification appears to rest on a fire risk assessment that many residents believe is flawed, but the result is that ordinary homeowners, including shared ownership homeowners trying to climb the ladder, have been left with unaffordable bills and no clear line of accountability for how those costs have been allowed to spiral.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for explaining the problems so clearly, problems that are shared by my elderly residents in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in Bingley. They too have seen above-inflation rises in service charges and a lack of transparency about accounts, with no evidence to justify them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time that we bring in licensing and stronger regulation of managing agents such as FirstPort?