Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.

Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.

Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.

The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.

Ending Homelessness

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the hon. Member anticipates something I will say later in my speech. I have long advocated that we need to build 90,000 affordable homes for social rent each year to meet the demand.

As co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to our new report, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”. The report brings together evidence from across the country, from local and combined authorities, charities, service providers, academics and, crucially, people who have lived experience of homelessness themselves. The report distils a complex problem into three simple but essential pillars that any effective strategy must deliver: first, preventing homelessness wherever possible; secondly, rapidly rehousing people who still need help; and thirdly, improving support for those experiencing the most severe forms of homelessness.

The best way to end homelessness is to prevent it happening in the first place. Almost everyone with lived experience who contributed to our APPG’s work identified a point at which their homelessness could have been prevented. That is a missed opportunity where timely help could have made all the difference. Prevention should not be a political issue; it is simply common sense and morally right, socially responsible and economically wise. Research by Shelter found that one in 10 people in temporary accommodation had to give up work due to their housing situation. That statistic alone should galvanise us to act earlier, before people lose not only their homes but their jobs, stability and self-confidence in a downward spiral.

Through my private Members’ Bills, I have worked to put prevention at the heart of our response. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 focused on preventing people becoming homeless and presented the largest and most comprehensive changes to the rights of homeless people for more than 39 years. Fundamentally, its purpose is to ensure that everyone at risk of being homeless or who is currently homeless is legally entitled to meaningful help from their local authority, regardless of their current status.

Previously, local authorities had been entitled to assist only those who were deemed a priority and at crisis point. That excluded the majority of people, including almost all of those who were single. The Act also addressed the significant lack of meaningful advice and assistance, which more often than not in the majority of cases was not tailored to the individual’s needs and requirements.

The Act implemented a duty on specified public bodies to refer any person whom they believed was at risk of homelessness within the next 56 days to the relevant housing department. That helps to direct appropriate and efficient support and resources to those in need and prevent them from sleeping rough before it is too late. The 56 days marks a significant extension; previously only those at risk of homelessness in the first 28 days would potentially receive some help. The extension to 56 means that people have a longer opportunity to relieve their situation.

I am pleased to say that, in the first year of implementation, the Homelessness Reduction Act prevented 37,000 people from becoming homeless. It continues to be just as effective today, some six years later. In the first year alone, an additional 60,000 people who were previously ineligible for homeless support were assisted in getting off the streets and into appropriate accommodation. That is a rise of almost 50% on the previous year to the Act’s implementation. Today, I am proud to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act has prevented more than 1.7 million people from becoming homeless, with more than 777,000 now in stable and secure long-term housing.

I am pleased that the Act has helped thousands avoid the trauma of homelessness, but the truth is that we can and must go further. Across our APPG’s evidence sessions, we repeatedly heard of cases where other public services missed crucial opportunities to step in: hospitals discharging patients on to the street; jobcentres overlooking signs of distress; prisons releasing people with no plan for where they would go next. Those are not isolated incidents; they are systemic failures. Recent analysis from the Institute for Government found that discharges from public institutions now account for almost half the recent rise in homelessness applications. If we are serious about tackling homelessness we cannot leave the burden solely on housing departments. It must be a whole-system effort, covering health, justice, education, welfare and local government. We must all work together to stop people falling through the cracks.

Prevention is not only compassionate; it is cost-effective. When someone keeps their home, they recover faster after illness, they are half as likely to reoffend and they find it easier to get back into work. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to discuss how she intends to embed prevention firmly at the centre of the Government’s homelessness strategy?

Even with the best prevention measures, there will always be times when homelessness cannot be avoided. When that happens, our goal must be to get people back into stable, affordable homes as quickly as possible. That requires a clear, long-term commitment to increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. I have long argued that if we are serious about ending homelessness we must build more homes that people can actually afford.

The Secretary of State’s recent commitment to delivering more social and affordable homes is welcome, but words must now turn into action, and that delivery must be targeted where the need is greatest. Too often, affordable homes are built in the wrong places or at rent levels that are out of reach for those most in need. I ask the Minister to confirm that she will work closely with the Housing Minister to ensure that the long-term plan for housing delivers social homes where they are most needed, and that people experiencing homelessness are given fair and equal access to them, because rapid rehousing works only when the homes are there for people to move into.

We must also ensure that temporary accommodation truly is temporary—a stepping-stone, not a dead end. I have met families who have spent years moving between short-term lets, B&Bs and converted offices, never knowing where they will be next. It is impossible to rebuild their lives under those conditions. A genuine rapid rehousing model backed by adequate social housing can break this cycle. It restores stability, improves health and education outcomes and reduces long-term costs. We owe it to those families, and to the taxpayers footing the bill, to make that a reality.

The third and final pillar of the APPG’s framework is support for those whose homelessness could not be prevented, and who need more than housing alone to rebuild their lives. Supported housing plays a crucial role in that effort. I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 after receiving extensive evidence of rogue landlords exploiting vulnerable people and the taxpayer. Rogue unscrupulous landlords were setting up supported housing schemes and claiming public money through housing benefit, while providing little or no care whatsoever. Devastatingly, those abuses were not just financial ones; they destroyed lives. Through the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee I saw how deeply that issue runs.

The challenge now is to strike the right balance: driving out the rogue providers while protecting the good ones, and ensuring that vulnerable residents are not made homeless again as a result of reform. That is why I agreed that the powers within the 2023 Act should be subject to consultation so that we can get this right; but we are two years on from Royal Assent and those powers have yet to see the light of day. I ask the Minister to provide an update on three points.

When will the Government publish detailed guidance and timescales for implementing that, including funding for councils, strategic needs assessments and licence fees? What steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities are not misusing their powers to close providers down through housing benefit reviews without proper care for the residents’ welfare? Will the Government confirm that domestic abuse refuges and dispersal providers will not be required to register every individual property separately? That is an administrative burden that would put vital services at risk.

Beyond regulation, however, lies a deeper issue: the collapse of support capacity. Across all our APPG evidence sessions we heard from charities, councils and service providers struggling to meet the growing complexity of people’s needs. The cuts to local support services over the past decade have hollowed out the safety net, leaving too many people without help at the moment they need it most. I have long been a champion of Housing First, a model that provides stable housing alongside intensive wraparound support. The evidence for its effectiveness is overwhelming, yet too many areas lack the funding to deliver it at scale.

When I worked on the supported housing Act, it became clear that rogue operators had thrived precisely because legitimate, well-regulated support had been stripped back. If we want to eliminate exploitation and end homelessness we must rebuild the foundations of proper support. I ask the Minister: what discussions is she having with colleagues across Government about addressing the chronic underfunding of support services? Will the forthcoming homelessness strategy include clear measures to ensure that everyone, regardless of their needs, can access the right help to rebuild their lives?

Homelessness is not inevitable. It is not a natural part of modern life. It is the product of policy choices, systems that fail to intervene soon enough and services that are no longer adequately resourced to meet the need. We have an opportunity and a duty to end that. This is a moment to bring together not only Government Departments, but local authorities, charities, faith groups and communities to deliver on our shared ambition that everyone should have a safe and secure place to call home.

At oral questions last week, the Minister said she never knowingly misses an opportunity to meet an APPG. In that spirit, I warmly invite her to join us at the APPG for ending homelessness annual general meeting, which will take place between 1 pm and 2 pm on 11 November, where she can discuss these issues further—and of course we will benefit from her words at the meeting. I place on record my sincere thanks to the APPG secretariat—Rosie, Matt, Jasmine and all the team at Crisis—for their outstanding work in co-ordinating our efforts, and to the 47 parliamentarians and 27 sector organisations serving on the steering group. Their commitment, expertise and compassion drives this agenda forward every single day.

This debate is not just an opportunity to restate our concern; it must be a catalyst for action. Homelessness is not inevitable. It is solvable. The test of any Government and any Parliament is whether we have the courage and compassion to solve it. Let us make sure that no child grows up without a place to call home, and that no person has to face another winter on the streets. Let us act together to end homelessness once and for all.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate. If a Member is intending to speak, please stand so that we have a chance to make sure everyone can make a contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Order. A lot of the people who are standing did not provide their names to the Chair. I am sorry, but I will have to impose a two-minute limit if I am going to get everybody in and bring in the Front Benchers at 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Brackenridge]

Absolutely. We have to heal the person and the family and respond to their situation, rather than simply securing a safe home, although that is of course important too.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to Wolverhampton’s wonderful community services, including the Good Shepherd, P3 and the Alternative Giving initiative, which gives 100% of donations directly to organisations and charities that work in Wolverhampton city centre to provide long-term support for those who need it.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You are all being very disciplined.

Parking Regulation

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered parking regulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his support in securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) —my good friend and constituency neighbour—for their tireless work in challenging the rip-off fines that private parking companies across the country are charging our constituents day in, day out. Irrespective of industry pressure, we will continue to fight on behalf of our constituents who face unfair parking fines. I also thank the RAC and the AA for their ongoing work to advocate for drivers across the country.

I will keep my contribution brief to allow other Members to speak for their constituents. I know that MPs are here from across the country and across party lines because their constituents, like mine in Derby, are fed up. They are fed up of wrestling with a faulty payment app or an out-of-order ticket machine only to find that they will still be fined. They are fed up of the hassle of appealing a parking fine that should never have been issued in the first place. Most of all, they are fed up of feeling scammed by private parking companies that are unfairly pocketing their hard-earned cash.

In my constituency, the Copeland Street car park is a repeat offender, ripping constituents off—both workers and visitors—with unfair fines. Do not just take my word for it; listen to my constituent who fell foul of unclear signage while doing jury service at Derby Crown court. He will now have to defend himself in court against fines in excess of £1,000. Another of my constituents is a member of Derby’s community with hearing difficulties, who uses the car park to attend essential hearing appointments. After receiving an unfair fine, he is understandably worried that this will happen again and again.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Please refrain from mentioning any matter that may be sub judice.

[Baggy Shanker]

Another resident contacted me and said:

“I’ll probably just pay the fine without contesting it, because the hassle of appealing would be too much.”

The data shows us that those people are sadly far from alone. Although almost one in two motorists who appeals gets their fines cancelled, 80% of private parking fines are paid straight away. A lack of proper regulation has written these companies a blank cheque to collect unfair fines. According to insurance company Churchill’s data, they are on course to make 15.4 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for vehicle records this year. That is a record average of more than 43,000 private parking tickets issued every single day—one every two seconds. Shockingly, 2,700 will be issued during the course of this debate. It is time to say enough is enough and introduce a legally binding code of practice, to put an end to the extortionate fines.

Earlier this year, I wondered why private parking companies introduced a voluntary code of practice, after years of doing everything they could to block a legally binding code of practice being introduced. To nobody’s surprise, the voluntary code goes nowhere near far enough to stand up for drivers and give them the protections they need. The cap on parking charge notices is still too high. The debt recovery fees are still allowed under the industry code. Put simply, they are setting their own rules and marking their own homework, or at best their mates’ homework. That is just not good enough.

Private parking companies need to act with fairness and common sense. To achieve that, we need a robust code of practice put into law, which stands up for drivers and holds these companies to account. Voluntary guidelines are failing drivers. We need clear, enforceable rules that cover signage, the grace period, appeals processes and the use of CCTV. We also need to put an end to the threatening letters that use legal jargon to intimidate people into paying fines, and we need caps on those fines. Ultimately, we need accountability.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s determination to drive up standards across the private parking sector by committing to publishing a statutory code of practice. Today, on behalf of every driver who has faced the nightmare of an unfair fine, I urge the Minister to commit to introducing such a code without any further delays. Most importantly, the emails that flood our inboxes every day show that drivers across the country are willing us to stand up for them. Now it is time for action.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they must bob if they want to speak in this debate. A lot of people want to speak, so if anyone intends to intervene, they should prepare their interventions carefully, because if an intervention is too long I will cut you off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

Absolutely—this is something that they should not have to put up with.

Norma felt bullied into making the payment to avoid threats of escalation. Complaints go into a flawed process: appeals are simply denied, and the supposedly independent appeal system acts as little more than a tick box, with no real opportunity to argue reasons. This is immediately followed by continued threats of enforcement, action and increased costs—and it goes even further than that.

Private parking companies seem to have licence to go much further than any other form of organisation. Why can such companies set up automatic number plate recognition or CCTV, have cameras literally hidden on any old building—often really high on outside walls—to film entire streets and into the houses opposite, and have them running 24/7 with a 360° view using night vision, when councils or the police would never be allowed to do such a thing? Why are private parking companies allowed to use such cameras with no restrictions, especially when councils cannot use them at all for off-street parking, since the Deregulation Act 2015 banned camera use for parking contravention in council car parks?

We urgently need an independent regulator. The public need information on how the camera systems are used and who is recording. We need to ensure that the appeal system is working, and that faulty parking machines are rapidly fixed. We need a cap on the maximum penalty charge that can be issued for contraventions. We need a proportionate and responsible debt recovery process for operators to use for non-payments, and we need responsible behaviour and transparency from the companies operating in this area. Critically, a new regulator will provide a single code of practice, so that all private parking operators follow the same rules, and a single independent appeals process.

In 2010, indiscriminate wheel clamping and towing on private land was described as a licence to print money due to the firms’ rogue conduct. The practice was banned by the local transport Minister, the then Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who said:

“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.”

Rather than the private parking lobby and finance world learning its lesson, it reverted to an industry based on outrageous practices, charges and threatograms. Let us end this situation. I ask the Minister to take urgent action.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit straight away, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Because you have all been so disciplined, and because one Member who had emailed about speaking in the debate is now not planning to do so, I can be a little more flexible with time, but not too much. You have roughly four minutes each from now on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and other colleagues for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have made contributions illustrating something that is a scandal across the whole country.

I want to highlight how my constituents in Shipley are being ripped off with a number of cases that are impacting both residents and shoppers. I spoke to a constituent who lives at Victoria Mills, a beautiful residential development in the heart of Saltaire. He has been trying to register his vehicle with the company that operates the residents’ car park, BaySentry. It has him down as owning two cars and two spaces, neither of which has the correct registration details, so every time he enters or exits his car park—sometimes two or three times a day—he is issued with a fine. The website is extremely difficult and confusing to use. Although he has been contacting the company, which keeps saying it will respond in three days, he has still had no response. Having clocked up several thousands of pounds in fines owed, he has decided to move out. He knows that other residents threatened with the same sort of penalty notices have paid up because they are too scared, as we have heard today.

Another constituent overstayed slightly at a supermarket car park, but saw that the signage was extremely poor and submitted evidence to that effect. She went down the route of appeal using POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals. That pretends to look like an independent appeals process, but, as we know, these are not independent processes; they are paid for by the parking companies. She has got into dispute with POPLA, which is not progressing her appeal. This is really undermining people’s confidence in parking.

The third case study is that of Susan, who has a happier story. She was shopping at the new Lidl store—she was there 30 minutes before opening time to use the browsing time before the store opened on a Sunday—and she received a fine from Parkingeye. She paid the fine and went to appeal, but got no joy from the company. It turned out that Parkingeye was not up to date with the store opening times, and it should never have fined her as she was not there out of hours. Thanks to my intervention on her behalf, we got a small victory: the cameras were updated and she got her money back.

It should not require the intervention of MPs with these private companies to stop this rip-off Britain. It seems like the companies have a blank cheque and are exploiting law-abiding residents of my constituency and people around the country. I hope the Minister will respond positively to my call and that of colleagues for properly independent regulation and clarity for consumers, and a legally binding code of practice.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace.

This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call Baggy Shanker to sum up for a couple of minutes. That is not an invitation for a seven-minute speech.

Planning Committees: Reform

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.

Building Safety and Resilience

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I commend all the maiden speeches that we have heard today: I feel as if I have been on a tour of England following the descriptions of so many constituencies. May I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) about his predecessor, Bob Neill? I now represent part of Bob Neill’s former constituency, and I know from talking to people during the recent general election campaign that he was held in high regard by his constituents. I wish him all the best for the future.

I am sick and tired of coming here and raising the issue of Master Gunner Place in my constituency. It has been in need of remedial work for a very long time, and still nothing has been done. It was built by Countryside Properties, now Vistry Group Ltd, and we understand that it is about to be handed over to a company called Samnas, although that is yet to happen I have written many times to the managing agent, Rendall and Rittner, about issues that have been raised with me by my constituents, but to no avail.

I was approached by one of my constituents who lives in Master Gunner Place. He had tried to sell his property on four occasions; at the final attempt he had one bidder, whose bid he accepted. However, the bidder was refused a mortgage owing to the size of the service charge. The charge for 2022-23 rose by 107% in 2023-24, to £6,100, and such charges are now trapping people in homes they are unable to sell. Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the leaseholders are entitled to demand from the freeholder or the managing agent an explanation of how those charges were arrived at. When the residents of Master Gunner Place asked for that, they were given only partial information, and on several occasions the managing agent failed to meet the requirement to respond within 30 days. In the end, the agent flatly refused to supply the missing information. When my constituent complained to the managing agent, it did not answer; it just got its solicitors to respond and threaten him with a county court judgment. As a result of that, my constituent had no option: because of the terms of the lease, he had to pay up; otherwise, he could have been in default. He ended up paying the service charge, plus nearly £1,250 in legal fees and interest for being two months late with his payment.

The residents tried to mount legal action but, ironically, they feared that if they were to take on the freeholder over the costs, they would risk the freeholder adding the cost of defending the action to their service charges, because of the terms of the lease. They are absolutely trapped in a situation whereby they need the information to be able to legally challenge the freeholder, but the freeholder and the managing agent are withholding the information that is needed to undertake the action. That cannot be a fair situation for the residents to be left in.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also about insurance? I have a constituent in a similar situation who has had to pay £2,500 in insurance costs.

[Clive Efford]

Yes, insurance costs are driving up service charges. I have heard of 60% increases in service charges that are attributable to insurance costs. Insurance companies are gouging prices and making money on the back of this situation. Given what has brought us to this debate, it is absolutely appalling that they are behaving in that way.

Remedial works are ultimately the responsibility of freeholders, and contributions from leaseholders should be capped. Management companies are obliged to provide the detail of what they intend to spend on such work but, unfortunately, they are withholding that information. The managing agent should not be able to charge residents anything until the information is supplied. The cap should be spread over 10 years, and no more than one tenth of the cost should be charged in any one year. In the absence of the relevant information, leaseholders cannot check whether the charges that are being imposed on them are reasonable. If they do not pay them and they challenge them, they risk being in default of their leases and receiving a letter from solicitors. The reality is that the terms of leases prevent people from being able to get justice.

The outstanding safety work in the block in Master Gunner Place is simply not being done. A survey was done at the end of 2019, and it was clear that the work needed to be done. In the intervening years, none of it has been carried out. The developer, Vistry Group, is supposedly in the process of handing over the freehold to Samnas, but because the legal documents have not been signed, the leaseholders have been left in limbo and are unable to progress any of the work. The leaseholders engaged lawyers to write to the developer in order to get a reply on the scope of the work that needed to be carried out, and they were informed that the work was due to start in August 2024. Here we are in September, and nothing has been done. They still have no idea about what work is in scope or what contribution the residents will have to make. There are three blocks involved in the development and, to date, none of them has had any of the remedial work done.

It is now time to draw a line under all this. It has gone on for too long. We know that the work needs to be done, we know who is responsible for it and we should not be allowing them to drag their feet any more. It is time for the remediation acceleration scheme to put a rocket under those developers and freeholders. We should be ensuring that they carry out this work, and that if they refuse to do so, they are fined. Only fines will make these people see reason; it is only if they are hit financially that they will change their ways. The remediation acceleration scheme must also include compensation for leaseholders for all the unreasonable charges they have been forced to pay because the management companies and the freeholders have withheld the information needed to ensure accurate fees and charges and that the cap is being properly applied. Where those companies have not done that, we should be making sure that they are fined.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Melanie Ward to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes some very important points about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which I shall address shortly. On his request to meet me, let me say that I am always happy to accept such invitations. As I am the Minister with lead responsibility for resilience, it may be better if my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for building safety takes that meeting. She is very keen to meet colleagues to discuss what support we can offer as a Government.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) may be a proud islander, but I can detect a Nottinghamshire accent from 10 paces—watching “Sherwood” makes my ears go. I know that he is a proud islander, but, like his predecessor, he has that connection with Nottinghamshire. He also has the accolade of being the first chip shop owner to enter Parliament. That again is a very good inducement to get colleagues, and perhaps Ministers, to visit him. We do recognise that life is different on the island, and, as a result, some of the challenges are different. We in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are ready to support him in his work in that space.

I move on to the contributions of colleagues who were not making their maiden speech. That is probably well timed because, judging by the faces behind me, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is coming to the end of his time as Select Committee Chair. He has shown such incredible leadership; he is a great parliamentarian, and has always been such a good and kind friend to me. I think it is safe to say that Ministers who have been before his Committee have found him tough and hard, but also very fair. He is also a very kind man. His service has been extraordinary.

Let me mention some of the points that my hon. Friend made. He talked about what help can be given to residents who wish to legally challenge recalcitrant owners and developers. Regulators have powers to act against such owners, and we expect them to do so. Our Department is responsible for holding to account developers who have signed the developer remediation contract, so if residents are concerned about the progress of remediation of their building, they should contact the regulator. If they are concerned about the progress of developer-led remediation, they should contact the Department. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Clive Efford]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the example that I gave earlier of a management agency not giving the information to leaseholders to check whether they were being charged the right amount of money or even to seek legal redress. There seems to be no power to force those agencies to give that information.