Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Southampton Itchen is one of the places in Hampshire with the most buildings with unsafe cladding. As hon. Members have said so eloquently, that means people live with the worry that the horrendous tragedy that befell Grenfell all those years ago could well befall them. Even where there has been action, it is hardly ideal. Nearly 200 of my constituents are currently out of their home. They were evacuated in the spring and summer of last year, and they will not be able to return until the summer of 2028 at the earliest. This is the stark reality that drives the urgent need for this Bill, and it is why I very much welcome it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Like other Members, I pay tribute to residents and campaigners, including those from End Our Cladding Scandal who supported one of the very first public meetings that I conducted as a new MP, and who have not let go of this issue over the years. Since I was elected, I have listened to residents who are affected by unsafe cladding on their buildings, pressed Ministers, and submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry on remediation. The Bill is the next instalment in resolving these ongoing issues; it will certainly not be the last. I want to acknowledge the real progress that it makes, but also ask for important clarification from the Minister.

Take Oceana Boulevard, a flagship development in the regeneration of brownfield sites in the centre of Southampton. It was built some 20 years ago, and its fire safety problems were first identified nearly 10 years ago. Since then, compartmentation works have been done, but that is all. Today, we have finally got in an application to the Building Safety Regulator, covering cladding, automatic opening vents and balcony remediation works, but—sadly, as we have heard, this is not an isolated story—there is still no agreement between the freeholder and the developer on who will pay for the non-cladding-related remediation, and none of that work is anywhere near starting.

In the meantime, as we all know, residents’ costs have been skyrocketing. Ellie bought her flat in Oceana Boulevard brand new. Her service charge and insurance rose from £1,500 a year to £6,000 a year, and she has not been able to keep up with the payments, so she has handed her home back to the bank. People are losing their homes, even if not to fire, because of these issues, which have taken far too long to resolve. For that reason, alongside this very welcome remediation Bill, we must with all urgency progress the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, and the action that the Prime Minister recently announced on regulating managing agents.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

The hon. Member is right to point out the stress on residents. Those at Northpoint in Bromley are part of a residents’ management company, but RMCs have no assets, so they lean into the service charges in order to pay some of the company’s liabilities. Would he agree with me that people in RMCs need to be protected as well?

[Darren Paffey]

We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are.

I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end.

I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home.

I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Much of what my hon. Friend is saying has echoes in my constituency. Residents in Hanwell Locks have been in a battle with Bellway over remediation works to their building. There has been an acknowledgment that works are needed, but there is no clear programme of works, and no progress at all. Those residents, like those in his constituency, are having trouble re-mortgaging or selling, and they are worried about the continuing fire risk. Does he agree that the remediation compliance plans required in the Bill and the strong financial penalties against builders will make a difference to our constituents?

[Darren Paffey]

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that although the Government already have remediation orders, remediation contribution orders and the responsible actor scheme, the Property Institute says that it has seen absolutely no evidence that they have been used proactively, and that no developer to date has faced any consequences? The Bill must ensure that is addressed.

[Darren Paffey]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s closing point. The Bill must fix that, which is why I welcome its progress, but like Members from across the Chamber, I will follow its progress very closely to ensure it is not just a Bill that gets a headline, but instead fixes things and gets things right.

The Blake building sits outside the developer contract, so this new duty will finally reach it. That is real progress from the Bill, but there are points on which residents still have questions, and campaigners are not yet convinced that all this goes far enough. I hope that the Minister will address some of those questions today.

First, most Ocean Village buildings are subject to the developer contract, but the Bill excludes them from the new duty because “equivalent requirements” are already in place; however, physical works have still not started on Sirocco, Moresby, Hawkins or Oceana Boulevard. We have heard different statistics, but those I am looking at tell me that nationally, there are over 2,500 buildings in that contract, but for 854 of them, work has not started and there is no plan in place—not a single plan between them. What will the measures mean for those living in buildings with no plan? It must mean progress. Should they not have audited assessments, published timetables and a backstop if a developer stalls? I hope that the Minister will confirm that Ocean Village residents will benefit from all three. The Bill rightly focuses on cladding, but residents live in whole buildings, and internal safety matters, too, so I very much welcome the announcement made at the Dispatch Box today. When it comes to filling that gap, I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will hear more detail about what the grant funding will cover.

Secondly, on enforcement, the Bill provides for prosecution, penalties of up to £500,000, and a backstop that allows Homes England or councils to step in, but as we all know, a power is only as good as the capacity to use it, and the route to the backstop will run through notices, representations and tribunals. How long will it take from first notice to a contractor on site? Will Homes England and councils such as Southampton city council be resourced to use that power?

Finally, and most practically for residents like Ben, is the question of when. The duty is to remediate

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

but the detail is left to regulations. The Government’s 2029 and 2031 deadlines, already put forward in the remediation acceleration plan, do not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to add them; my constituents would find that reassuring. If she will not, can she commit to dated milestones, and a hard stop date in those regulations, so that 2029 is the final, legally enforceable deadline that constituents need, not just an aspiration?

Those who have been waiting years and cannot move on have asked if there is any way for the Government to buy back those homes while they are waiting. Now, I suspect that I know the answer, but I will ask—particularly as the Budget is tomorrow. The previous Chancellor amended some of the rules to ensure that council-owned properties are assets, not liabilities. By releasing people from the stalemate that they are in with their homes and families, could we be looking at assets that this Government, who need to build and own more housing, could very much use?

I will proudly support the Bill on Second Reading. For everyone who needs the Bill to be the strongest it can be, I will be glad to engage with Ministers and others as it progresses through the House. We need to fix all our buildings. We need to ensure that the work is paid for by those who were responsible for this sorry episode, which I believe is an absolute stain on our history. In doing so, we might just be able to give people their futures back—people like Ellie, Ro, Ben, the hundreds of others in Southampton Itchen, and the thousands more across the country whose stories have been told by Members across the House. They have all had enough and want an end to the nightmare. The Bill—if we do it right—gives them that hope.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Darren Paffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. It is a manifesto commitment, and one that will matter enormously to communities such as mine in Southampton by prioritising the building of social homes and better protecting the stocks we already have. Although we are talking a lot about bricks and mortar, these measures speak directly to whether children have a stable place to grow up, whether survivors of abuse can live their lives in safety, and whether places such as Southampton can offer residents decent, affordable housing as a reality, not a pipe dream.

Our city council manages about 18,000 homes, and there are another 2,500 leasehold and shared ownership properties. It is a huge and valuable asset, but it is an asset under strain, with more than 8,000 people on the waiting list. In that time, families live in overcrowded flats and temporary accommodation, and workers who come and contribute enormously to our city cannot afford a home that is genuinely affordable or secure. Those are the kinds of situations that come up in my surgeries and, I am sure, in those of other Members.

[Sarah Russell]

Does my hon. Friend find, as I do in my patch, that those who are on the social housing waiting list for the longest are often those with a disability who need a fully adaptable home? Does he agree that it is vital, when we spend public money on building new homes, that they should be built to an accessible and adaptable standard from the off?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very salient point. That is true in my patch as well, where tenants need homes with adaptations either for themselves or for disabled children, so I hope the Minister is able to speak to that.

Those are all reasons why one of the most important and welcome aspects of the Bill is its central measure to protect existing social housing stock by reforming the right to buy. Since 1980, this country has sold more than 2 million social homes through right to buy and replaced only a fraction of them. I remember growing up in three council homes as a child with my family. I have great memories of the secure home that we had, but I often wonder whether they have been lost to the system.

Southampton has felt that loss directly, and at the same time it is facing rising costs for emergency accommodation for homeless families. The measures in the Bill on extending the qualifying period, on tapering the discount and on exempting new social homes are sensible and proportionate changes. They preserve a genuine route into home ownership for long-standing tenants, while removing the perverse incentive that has, for decades, discouraged councils like mine from building. I welcome the new requirement for private registered providers to give notice before selling a home, so that the council or another provider has a chance to keep it in the social sector. That is a small but practical protection, and one that I will strongly encourage Southampton city council to use.

I particularly welcome the provisions in part 3 relating to survivors of domestic abuse. As other Members have said, a home should be a place of safety, yet for many victims, housing insecurity is what stops them from escaping abuse. That is unforgivable and we must remove that barrier. The measures will make it easier for survivors to remain in safe accommodation. I hope Members across the House are able to unite behind that principle.

Can I ask the Minister to address two questions when winding up? First, how will the Government ensure that the protections translate into a genuine long-term increase in social rented stock in high-demand areas such as Southampton, where waiting lists and temporary accommodation costs are already straining local services? Secondly, what support will be available to local authorities and housing associations to implement the Bill successfully? Legislative reform is essential, but councils need the financial and operational capacity to deliver the outcomes that we are all behind. Will the Department match the ambition of the Bill with the capital investment needed to ensure that authorities such as Southampton, which already carry a decent homes backlog on more than half its stock, can genuinely invest?

As others have said, legislation alone will not solve every aspect of the housing crisis that faces Southampton and the rest of the country, but the Bill takes bold and meaningful steps in the right direction: protecting social housing and stopping the leaks in the bucket; protecting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes; and giving councils the tools and the confidence to build again. For residents in Southampton and across the country who need a safe, affordable, secure home, that progress matters. That is why I will proudly vote for that progress today.

Local Government Reorganisation

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I do not see local government reorganisation as a wasted endeavour. I have been really clear about the reason for the pause: to get the decision right. We have committed to providing transitional funding. Where local government reform has happened in the past, we have seen that there have been savings, but my motivation is to work with local authorities to improve their services. Local authorities recognise that we could do that. I am absolutely committed to continuing that, and we will work at pace to deliver for the hon. Member’s area.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend back to her role and thank her for her statement. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is no longer in his place, because I wanted to assure him that, far from being swallowed up, his constituents would have had a warm welcome and excellent local public services as part of Southampton.

I understand the difficult decision that the Secretary of State has had to make, but I must express disappointment that after all the hard work across councils and across parties, the five unitaries for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will not be going ahead. Will she confirm that, after her rapid review, Southampton and the surrounding councils will still have the opportunity to reorganise if they so wish, or is this the last we will hear of LGR?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely want to reassure hon. Members that this is not the end of local government reorganisation, because I am absolutely committed to it. I commend my hon. Friend for his work, and his local partners and others across the House who recognise what local government reorganisation could do for their area. I want to work at pace to put us on a firm footing, so that I as Secretary of State am clear-eyed about the decision I am making and that we can go ahead, with their consent or not.

Representation of the People Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

No, I will not.

The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language?

The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that.

Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her role. I share the confidence of the House, as has been expressed, from her excellent role as the Chair of the Select Committee, and I know that she will do her best in this role, too.

This Bill and the amendments we are discussing matter because they go to the heart of what all of us hear on the doorstep, which is that people simply do not trust in politics or in many of the people in it any more. Trust and turnout are regrettably at record lows. That is not an abstract complaint or something where it would be nicer if we had a bit more of it; it is corrosive to democracy itself, so this Bill is a significant and welcome step forward, to do things such as give young people a voice, iron out some of the inconsistencies in voter registration, and crack down on the money and abuse that too often poison our elections.

Taken together, a number of the amendments before us are a genuine opportunity to further rebuild that trust by making our voting system fairer, getting big money and dodgy money out of politics, and ensuring that everyone can safely, confidently, independently, secretly and, one day—who knows?—enthusiastically be able to cast their vote.

I want to make the broader point that I acknowledge and accept that there is a new clause that cannot be named which is no longer in scope, but I wish to express my regret that it is not. This Bill is an opportunity to go as far as possible in restoring trust. Many of us believe that that is now missing.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of the new clause that we are not talking about, because it is not in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.

[Darren Paffey]

My point is that in addressing amendments 69,70, 80, 120, 72 and 48, as I intend to, there is a context. Many of us believe that the world of two-party politics no longer exists, and we need a political system that supports what every other amendment and every other part of the Bill seeks to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Building Safety Regulator.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

18. What progress his Department has made on reforming the Building Safety Regulator.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

On 27 January, the Building Safety Regulator became an arm’s length body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This was a major step towards creating a single construction regulator. The BSR continues to make strong progress on overhauling its operating model. Only the most complex legacy new build cases remain, and new applications are being approved near the 12-week target, through the innovation unit. The BSR is building on this progress, and is focusing on delivering improvements in respect of remediation and the occupation regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

Tomorrow marks one year since the residents of Sundowner Court in Southampton were forced to leave their home because of serious fire safety defects. Two neighbouring blocks followed suit soon after, and no one expects to be back in their home for at least another year. The Government rightly prioritised speeding up remediation, and it is important that our regulator shares that sense of urgency, but the Building Safety Regulator is taking up to 40 weeks to approve some of the remediation plans. What improvements can the Minister promise that this Government will make to speed up those approvals and end the misery for my residents?

[Samantha Dixon]

MHCLG and the Building Safety Regulator accept that many applicants have experienced delays, and we recognise that having to wait 40 weeks for decisions is unacceptable. That is why the BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team, and is engaging with stakeholders to work through the detail of applications. A new batching model is being trialled to reduce the length of time taken to assess building control applications, while maintaining building and resident safety.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I must say, without getting into the detail of the circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituents, it is hard to know which of the measures will benefit them most. If they are subject to high ground rent charges, the cap on introduction will benefit them hugely on its introduction. If they have suffered from the threat of forfeiture, which is a draconian and disproportionate means of enforcing lease terms, they will benefit in myriad ways from the legislation.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and thank him for it. Like thousands of long-suffering leaseholders across Southampton Itchen, I warmly welcome this announcement. Residents of the Sapphire Court development have already been paying ground rent that is higher than the cap, and there is a plan to double it, but thanks to the action of this Labour Government that will not happen. How soon will Southampton’s leaseholders will get the rights, protections and securities that they have been waiting a long time for and that they deserve?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, it is the Government’s intention to ensure that the draft Bill, and the final product that eventually comes forward after scrutiny by the Select Committee, is made law as soon as possible so that leaseholders can benefit from the new provisions. In general terms, no one will pay more than the ground rent cap that we are introducing, but millions of people will pay less. Approximately 770,000 to 900,000 leaseholders with ground rents over £250 will see savings in this Parliament, and others will see savings in greater amounts in Parliaments to come.

Supporting High Streets

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Pitcher]

I could not agree more. We must be ambassadors and advocate for the wonderful innovation, ingenuity and entrepreneurship that business owners show along our high streets.

I also want to show today areas that the Government are already helping to revitalise, so I am going to take hon. Members on a small tour of places in my constituency: a Doncaster East and Isle of Axholme Monopoly tour. In Epworth, you will find a wonderful and diverse array of independent shops—Hatty’s Tea Room, the Cosy Cake Shop, Godiva Hair Loss and Wig Specialists, and Imelda’s—bringing people into the centre and supporting local jobs. In Crowle, Elizabeth Kate Bridal and Sadie’s Tea Room on the high street show how specialist independents and long-standing family businesses can thrive side by side.

Haxey has long benefited from a community of traditional pubs that helps keep the historic Haxey Hood alive; in fact, the Kings Arms has just unveiled a mural of the hood that many people come to see. In Rossington, Death by Fudge has grown from a kitchen idea into a much loved shop, proving that when small businesses find the right high street home, they thrive—and I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are definitely worse ways to go than death by Kinder. On a Friday, the Rossington market, straight opposite Death by Fudge, is always open and welcome to residents. This weekend I look forward to popping into the newly opened Thorne Park Café.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned shoplifting. It is hugely commendable how the shopkeepers in Thorne have come together. A great example is the Shop Watch scheme—a partnership between retailers and the neighbourhood policing team that is cutting retail crime and giving shopkeepers the confidence to trade. Reports show a 34% fall in shoplifting since the scheme started, with repeat offenders brought to justice. That is the kind of common-sense collaboration that keeps our high streets safe and welcoming for shoppers.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

On the issue of shoplifting, does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories are having a bad day with their memory? Not only have they forgotten that next to my seat of Southampton Itchen is Madam Deputy Speaker’s equally fine seat of Romsey and Southampton North, where twice I failed to persuade the people to vote for me; they are also forgetting what happened on their watch. They gave shoplifters a £200 free pass, which has brought violence and intimidation to our streets; that is in contrast with our plans to put more police back on the beat and get rid of that free pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the kind of change that Labour is making to my constituency and to his?

[Lee Pitcher]

That is 100% the kind of change that a Labour Government make to our high streets.

In Bawtry, our traders have been flying the flag for our area at No. 11, engaging directly with the Chancellor on how small firms power local growth. That connection matters because it is about national decisions that are grounded in the reality of our market towns. Where else can you visit the China Rose for an amazing Chinese banquet at a 40-year-young family-run business while listening to a little bit of Dolly Parton? But if you do visit, check out the website first, because the restaurant is not only open 9 to 5! At the Crown Hotel, you can have a coffee on a Sunday next to a saxophonist—that is not easy to say after a few beers, so stick to the coffee! And in Hatfield, independents like Kayna’s, 4 On The High Street and Ju Belle show what local enterprise can achieve.

Committed owners and real community spirit are keeping our high streets vibrant and resilient, and it is not just businesses but committed local volunteers who are making their communities better places to live—people like Leah Richmond in Lindholme, who has led a scheme to turn a traditional phone box into a mini library on the high street.

This Labour Government are matching that local energy with national action. We will invest £20 million in Rossington through the pride in place programme, allowing the neighbourhood to take charge of regeneration, reviving the high street and renewing our parks and public spaces. In Moorends, we have put levelling-up funding secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and myself to good use, turning plans into projects that people can see and use, improving facilities for sport, families and community groups, and helping to unlock pride and opportunity. Part of that comes through investment in shop frontage areas to ensure that the environment is as wonderful and welcoming outside as the shops are inside—shops like Chris Huby Butchers, where I often go to buy mum her corned beef and spam of a weekend.

We will give our communities new powers to buy back beloved assets, use compulsory purchase to tackle long-term shop vacancy, and block the clustering of unwanted outlets where they undermine the character and safety of the high street. For large, empty sites, those powers will help to bring forward new health facilities and housing where appropriate. We are also backing businesses by cutting red tape by 25%, freeing up time and money for owners to grow.

I pay tribute to the shopkeepers, market traders and small business owners across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Let me finish by extending an invite: come and visit the high streets in my constituency—spend your money in our shops, enjoy yourself, and delight in everything that Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme has to offer.

Pride in Place

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the heroes who helped to hold our communities together through 14 years in which they were neglected and faced huge pressure. Pride in Place is a vote of confidence in those local heroes. Our job is to give them what they need in order to drive the change they have been rightly calling for.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I am delighted that this Labour Government are investing £20 million into Weston and a further £1.5 million into the wider Southampton Itchen constituency. Ideas are already flooding in from a group of people who are relieved not to be overlooked yet again, as they were under the last Government. Does the Minister agree that such long-term, stable and—most important—community-led investment is absolutely the right way to transform communities like Weston for the better?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Long-term, stable investment that is anchored in our communities and puts them in the driving seat is a game changer. I am incredibly excited about the programme, but it is examples like his that show us just how transformative it could be.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I really welcome this pivotal Bill. When I was deputy leader of Southampton city council, I saw at first hand how local decisions made by local people were transformative for the community, but I also saw over 14 long years of Conservative government how we were held back by a broken system that turned councils into supplicants, in constant competition with our neighbours, forced to put our begging bowl out for crumbs from Whitehall’s table. That ends with this Bill, and I really welcome the change that it represents and the measures it contains. I also welcome the fact that Southampton, along with other councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is part of the devolution priority programme, allowing us to take advantage of these powers from next May.

The political benefits are clear, and the promise in our manifesto is being delivered, but the process matters, so we have to get this right. What I am interested in is how these powers improve the life chances of my constituents. My message to all council leaders, including in Southampton, is that we must be clear about what we want to do with these powers. I note that the Conservative police and crime commissioner, who is now running to be Mayor of Hampshire, has said that her big priorities are closing hotels for asylum seekers and stopping houses being built to avoid upsetting Tory district councils. That is certainly a vision, but it is disappointingly narrower than what this moment requires.

For me, there are three basic tests that regional devolution must meet to make this worth it: first, it improves employment and skills prospects, particularly for those most marginalised from the labour market; secondly, it progresses investment in and integration of our transport network, specifically low-polluting public transport that is well connected and affordable; and thirdly, it galvanises house building, so that working people can afford to live and work locally—that is especially vital in the south, where housing demand is acute and nimby Tory and Lib Dem-led councils are failing to deliver for local people. As an aside, I also welcome the return to the more representative supplementary vote system.

I appreciate that local government reorganisation is a separate process, but in Hampshire our local leaders are being asked to endorse new council areas alongside a mayoral authority. I support the proposal backed by 12 out of the 15 councils in Hampshire—run by all parties—to establish five unitary authorities across the area and have signed a joint letter to support that. I urge Ministers to not simply take the easy option and stitch together pre-existing organisations.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As someone who also represents a constituency in Hampshire, I agree with my hon. Friend. In terms of the letter we have sent, would it not make more sense for boundary changes to be part of the process, as opposed to an add-on at the end?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for making that point. Absolutely, boundary changes must be looked at sympathetically by Ministers. I hope to get that reassurance in their comments, because what we stand to gain in the short term from a quick and easy decision, we will lose in the long term if councils find themselves saddled with nonsensical boundaries.

I have two other quick requests, the first of which is on mayoral councils. Giving mayoral councils a statutory footing would provide a powerful forum for central Government to meet devolved government and iron out policy issues. Secondly, will the Minister set out the Government’s ambitions and timescales for local public accounts committees? A lot of colleagues have talked about restoring trust in politics, and I think that openness, in particular on public moneys, can be delivered in that way.

In closing, there is a lot to be excited about in the Bill. I am pleased to see this Labour Government fulfilling another manifesto commitment and bringing real change for our communities.

Leasehold Reform

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely agree, and I will turn to that in a second.

We will also be consulting on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums, and would welcome hon. and right hon. Members’ views on that. However, there are some deficiencies in the Act that need to be rectified in primary legislation, so we do need to legislate. That gives us the opportunity to bring forward, in line with what hon. Members have said, a new era of commonhold being the default tenure for new flats.

That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to a leasehold and commonhold reform Bill. It is part of our commitment to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We have committed to publishing draft legislation on this in the second half of the year. It will make commonhold the default, and it began with the publication of the White Paper in March. Alongside that, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the 5 million leaseholders, we want to make the conversion process easier. Once commonhold comes back into public prominence as a model, I think it will be more popular, but we want it to be easier as well.

We want to reform the existing system by legislating to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, as was mentioned, to remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture, to act to protect leasehold from poor service from managing agents, as many have said, and to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. We will address private estate management in that.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work for my constituents. I am sure that he will sympathise with the latest victim to have been in touch with me. He said that with an unsellable and unmortgageable flat, due to the charges that the Minister has mentioned, he is now on the verge of bankruptcy. Does the Minister agree that real change for leaseholders is now beyond urgent, and can he assure us that this year, residents will see not only legislation but real change?

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely can. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for buildings in Southampton. We are meeting later to discuss one of them. I assure him, and those residents, that we know that they need change and relief now. That is why we have made the changes that we have been able to make so far. We want to get the changes right so that when the relief comes, it sticks, does not get mired and has the right impact. However, we appreciate the urgency with which my hon. Friend speaks.

Several hon. Members have mentioned service charges and managing agents. Service charges have become a particular pinch point, highlighted by the cost of living pressures in recent years. The LAFRA gives us measures to increase transparency and to remove barriers that prevent leaseholders from challenging them, including more standardised information. However, this year, we will consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and litigation costs so that we can bring them into force as quickly as possible.

We will also consult on reforms to the section 20 major works procedure, which landlords must follow when leaseholders receive big bills for large works, as has been mentioned in the debate. There is much more to do in that area.

On the subject of managing agents, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth that we have heard her call about minimum standards.