(2Â weeks, 4Â days ago)
Commons ChamberThe shadow Minister raises a justified point, in that in some cases securing the necessary public service infrastructure is about ensuring that the buildings are brought forward through the relevant developer contributions and other infrastructure funding streams. In some cases, there are other issues, such as workforce challenges in particular. We regularly speak to colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that we get that infrastructure up front and alongside development.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Young people must be seen and heard. We are giving 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK a vote in elections. We are working across Government and with our partners to prepare them to exercise that right, including through our ÂŁ2.5 million Democratic Education Fund.
Ms Minns
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but blind and visually impaired young voters will still be disenfranchised as long as there is not legislation that requires them to be able to vote, in secret and independently, like their peers. Will the Minister please reiterate the commitment she gave last week that the Government will table an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to provide fully accessible voting to all voters of all ages?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all her work highlighting this important issue, and I am happy to reiterate my commitment on Report. As she noted in that debate, the Government have indicated their readiness to act during the passage of the Bill so that visually impaired voters can vote independently and in secret. We will continue to work with her and other hon. Members to deliver that outcome.
(3Â weeks, 2Â days ago)
Commons Chamber
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank those hon. Members whose excellent amendments I have put my name to. There are dozens of them, so I could not list them all, but they included amendments on electoral reform, capping political donations, crypto, and preventing domestic abusers from standing for election. Today, I speak in support of my new clauses 32 and 33, which would require candidates in parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales to obtain an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check.
Public trust in politics is at a historic low. The National Centre for Social Research found that 79% of people surveyed believed that Britain’s system of Government needed significant improvement. That long-running survey, conducted since 1986, shows a marked decline in confidence in our political institutions over recent decades. The reasons for that decline are complex, but repeated cases of misconduct by elected representatives have undoubtedly played a part.
In recent years, Parliament has seen a series of high-profile cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In the last Parliament, several Members were suspended, sanctioned or forced to leave office following serious findings or criminal convictions. In 2023, it was reported that more than 50 MPs had been referred to Parliament’s independent complaints and grievance scheme for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. The overwhelming majority of MPs and councillors serve with integrity and dedication, but the actions of a small minority damage the reputation of all of us in public life.
The same principle applies in local government. Councillors often hold positions of public trust and responsibility, including things connected to safeguarding and child protection, yet there have been numerous examples of councillors convicted of serious offences or resigning following allegations of misconduct. We rightly require taxi drivers, teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals and many others to undergo DBS checks before they can work in positions involving public trust and contact with vulnerable people. It is therefore reasonable to ask why those seeking elected office should be exempt from the equivalent requirement.
Of course, a DBS check is not a guarantee of good conduct—no safeguarding measure is foolproof—however, it would establish a minimum standard and set an important precedent. It would send a clear message to those seeking elected office that they should meet the same basic expectations that we apply to everyday workers. As elected representatives, we regularly interact with constituents, volunteers, parliamentary and political staff, and members of the public. We visit schools, youth groups, hospitals, care settings, community organisations and in many cases we come into contact with children, young people and vulnerable adults. In any other role involving that level of contact, a DBS check would be regarded as the basic and proportionate requirement. Since becoming an MP, I have been asked when visiting schools whether I have been DBS checked, and people have been surprised to learn that we are not required that have it.
My new clauses are not about restricting democracy; they are about strengthening confidence in it. They are about safeguarding the public, improving standards in public life and helping to rebuild trust in our public and democratic institutions. My new clauses would require candidates to hold a DBS check prior to submitting their application to the returning officer, therefore placing no financial burden on Government or councils. I urge the Government to consider the proposals seriously. Will the Minister set out what further steps the Government intend to take to strengthen safeguarding, improve standards in public life and restore public trust and confidence in elected representatives?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for all her work on the Bill. I also welcome the Minister to her place.
I will speak briefly to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I thank the many Members from across the House who have supported it and the Royal National Institute of Blind People for its assistance and support in drafting it. The Bill takes a significant step towards strengthening and protecting our democracy and extending the franchise. However, we must recognise that one group of voters remain disenfranchised and unable to vote independently and in secret because they cannot see the ballot form in front of them.
I first worked on the issue of accessible voting at the 1997 general election, when I had the privilege of working for Scope on the “Polls Apart” campaign. “Polls Apart” shone a light on the physical barriers that disabled people face when exercising their right to vote. It went on to secure changes in the law to remove many of those barriers. Nearly three decades on, however, blind and partially sighted people still cannot reliably vote independently and in secret.
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Bill and on trying to level the playing field to ensure that every Member and every person has the ability to vote independently and in secret. She rightly highlights that one group, which includes me, are unable to vote independently and in secret because we are unable to see our ballot paper clearly. Does she agree that it is time for everyone to work together to ensure that we level the playing field so that every person has the ability and the right to exercise their vote independently and in secret?
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.
One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.
John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.
Anna Dixon
I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?
Ms Minns
I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.
This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
(4Â months, 1Â week ago)
Commons ChamberAbsolutely. The situation that the hon. Member highlights is far too common across every part of the United Kingdom. It is really important that the Government drive forward an ambitious solution that tackles all the issues that he has set out.
Homeowners on average pay ÂŁ350 in maintenance fees. That is a significant sum of money, on top of their council tax bill, and fees often run to much more than that. I have had correspondence from residents who have been paying close to ÂŁ1,000 in fees. That is exacerbated by the fact that the relationship with the management companies is often structured in a way that inflates the costs that have to be paid. We have heard examples of constituents having to pay up to ÂŁ200 simply to have a lightbulb fixed on a street lamp, and some estates have been subdivided to the point where the biggest part of their bill each year is simply for having the accounts audited of a management company to which they do not want to be on the hook. They are being hit in the wallet, week in, week out, by fees that simply cannot be justified by the quality of the service that they are receiving. That is making them poorer not just in their wallet, but in their pride of place. This lack of accountability is not just inflating costs but leading to very poor service.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend touches on a key point that a group of residents of Moorside Drive in my constituency have recently spoken to me about. For well over a year, they have been trying to get the developer Gleeson to take responsibility for completing the resurfacing of a road on their new housing estate, and for maintaining the green spaces. Does he agree that we have to get this right, and bring developers like Gleeson to heel, so that they make investments and do the works to improve the quality of life of residents on these estates?
My hon. Friend is spot on in highlighting that Gleeson and many other developers right across the country are not fulfilling their crucial obligations, and new homeowners are being failed as a result. We owe them a duty of action over the coming years. Alongside the big challenges on quality of service, I have seen estates where the public realm has fallen into complete disrepair, roads are riddled with potholes, and playgrounds are unsafe and very poorly maintained.
(8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. I have set out the way in which we are consulting with local authorities, and the Secretary of State will take the decision accordingly.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As the Minister has already mentioned, the previous Government postponed elections in 2021, including in my constituency. Does she agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Communities Secretary at the time—and whom I note is not in either of his recent places in the Chamber this afternoon—that holding elections “in such circumstances”, namely local government reorganisation, risks
“confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms”?—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]
I do not know about agreeing with the right hon. Member for Newark, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who gets to the point we are trying to make. We are acting in accordance with precedent. She makes that point very well.
(10Â months, 3Â weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing the debate and enabling Members across the House to give voice to our constituents, like mine in Carlisle, who are, quite frankly, fed up. They are fed up with being charged hundreds of pounds a year in estate management fees for services that are either not delivered or delivered poorly; they are fed up with asking for transparency and getting vague spreadsheets, instead of receipts for the services that they are told have been delivered; and they are fed up with being told that they have no choice, no voice and no way to challenge that.
One of my first pieces of casework, after my election last year, concerned FirstPort, and one of the more recent cases concerned another estate management company, Gateway. They are different companies, but there was the same problem with charges for things like grass cutting, street cleaning and lighting maintenance. One might say that those charges are to be expected, but too often they are levied while the grass becomes overgrown, the rubbish is not picked up and the roads remain unlit. Quite rightly, residents then ask for proof of where their money has been going and, quite consistently, they are given a list of costs, not invoices—no evidence and no accountability. In some cases, the same service appears more than once under different names. It is confusing, opaque and unfair.
I acknowledge the work done by the last Government and continued by our Government. I was pleased to see swift action in the early months of this Government to implement key provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I welcome the Government’s wider programme of reform, removing the threat of forfeiture, tackling abuse by managing agents and implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations on right to manage, but we must go further, especially as we build new homes.
The Government’s house building agenda is ambitious, and rightly so. We need more homes and we need them quickly, but we also need to ensure that when people move into those homes, they are not being ripped off by management companies they did not choose. It is not enough just to get the bricks and mortar down; we need to ensure that the regulation around property charges is constructed properly too.
We need enforceable standards for transparency. If a company charges for a service, they must be required to show that it was delivered and provide proof of what it cost. If the grass becomes overgrown, the litter piles up and the roads remain unlit, residents should not be expected to pay. We also need a clear route to redress. At the moment, too many people feel trapped by being tied to a management company that they did not choose, with no meaningful way to hold it to account.
Asking for reform is not about undermining the sector; it is about fairness, restoring trust and ensuring that when people buy a home, they are not buying into a system that takes advantage of them. We have made a start, but if we are serious about protecting homeowners, we need to finish the job and to bring cowboy estate management companies to heel.
(11Â months, 1Â week ago)
Commons Chamber
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member, and I am very happy to meet him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s investment of £20 million in the Raffles and Morton neighbourhoods of my Carlisle constituency. As I am very fond of reminding Members, Carlisle is the most northerly city in England—120 miles north of Manchester, and a very long way from this place. Does the Minister agree with me that what is truly transformative about this programme is not simply the money, but the fact that decisions about how it will be spent are put in the hands of local people, not politicians and civil servants in what we in Carlisle call “that London”?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Putting local people and communities in charge is game changing, if we get it right. I think it will lead to better decisions, and to an impact on places that matters to people. However, there is a big collective onus on all of us to get that right. The instinct to hoard power at the centre and to control is strong, and we all have to work to make sure that we put our communities in the driving seat.
(1Â year, 2Â months ago)
Commons Chamber
Daniel Francis
That is absolutely the case. We will visit the same places for days out and we know our routine in central London, because we know where we will be welcomed and where we have had those bad experiences, which I have mentioned.
We do, of course, also need to consider this place. We have a Changing Places toilet in the Lower Waiting Hall, which is of the very old, original standard. It is therefore difficult to hoist somebody on to the bed, given how low the ceiling is. There is, however, no facility for visitors to Portcullis House, which is something we need to consider going forward.
In my constituency, there is one Changing Places toilet, located in the Broadway shopping centre, but we need more. Hall Place would be a fantastic place to have one, given that it is the premier cultural attraction and open space in my constituency.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
There are four Changing Places toilets in my constituency, which, given that it is one of England’s largest constituencies, still feels very inadequate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one sector where we would definitely benefit from more Changing Places toilets is in our visitor attractions? Does he support my call for English Heritage to increase the number of Changing Places facilities on its estate?
Daniel Francis
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend says, I am pretty sure that there are some in her constituency, but we do need to expand that. Having those facilities on the south bank has made such an impact culturally, I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
(1Â year, 3Â months ago)
Commons Chamber
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Government continue to progress the implementation of the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute, while at the same time undertaking the work required to bring forward the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We remain on track to deliver our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda, as set out in the written ministerial statement that I made on 21 November last year.
The Government remain committed to providing existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. We commenced the right-to-manage measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 on 3 March. We remain firmly committed to tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver that in legislation. We will set out further detail on our proposed approach to enabling the conversion of existing leaseholds to commonhold in our draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.
Ms Minns
Inflation-busting estate management fees for little or no service plague residents across the country, including those of the Brackenleigh, Greymoor Meadows and Denton Mill estates in my Carlisle constituency. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Government’s actions will curb those atrocious practices by estate management companies?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; I recognise that many hon. Members across the House are affected by this issue. The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed tenure housing estates from unfair charges. We will consult this year on implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the millions of homes subject to the charges affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, and we will bring measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.
(1Â year, 3Â months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Brackenridge
Investment has to go where it is most needed. Hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why we see such representation in this debate.
Child poverty in Wolverhampton North East tells a clear story. In 2014-15, 22% of children were living in absolute poverty. That figure now stands at 31%, which should shame us. More than that, however, it must galvanise us. Nationally, the situation is no better. In 2023-24, 18% of people in the UK were in absolute poverty after housing costs. According to the Resolution Foundation, another 1.5 million people, including 400,000 children, will fall into poverty by 2030 unless bold action is taken. Those are not just statistics on a spreadsheet; they are real lives. They are children going to school tired and hungry. They are young people who are poorer now than their parents’ generation, with less hope of buying their own house. They are families stuck in insecure housing or waiting years for mental health support. They are opportunities lost and represent an injustice at the heart of our society.
That is why the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—ICON—has been so vital. Under the leadership of Baroness Armstrong, ICON has helped to shine a light on what is really happening in the most disadvantaged areas of our country: mission-critical neighbourhoods. It reveals what people are facing, how they feel about Government and what can be done differently. Its recent polling in partnership with Public First is a wake-up call. Just 5% of adults in England believe that the Government care about “neighbourhoods like mine”: a damning verdict on decades of decisions made too far from the people they affect.
It is not just a question of neglect; it is a fact of inequality. Nearly seven in 10 people believe that the Government care about some neighbourhoods more than others: the wealthier ones, the connected ones, the places where voices carry weight. They have lower crime, higher economic activity, higher intergenerational wealth and higher life expectancy.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
On life expectancy, in my constituency, the lives of men and women in the most deprived neighbourhoods are nine years shorter than in the more affluent ones. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the strategy has to be around narrowing those health inequalities?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree. If I drive 10 minutes in my constituency, the life expectancy increases by more than seven years, which is shocking. This is not the politics of envy; it is the reality after the politics of inequality. This is about restoring people’s chances to participate in Government, making it something that is done with them rather than to them.
There is cause for hope. In January, I had the pleasure of welcoming Baroness Armstrong to the Scotlands Estate in the Fallings Park ward of my constituency. We visited the Big Venture Centre, an anchoring institution in the neighbourhood. It is an inspiring community-focused project that is changing people’s lives every single day. From the pink ladies—and men—who volunteer there to the WV10 community chefs who support healthy eating education, to the community shop helping with the cost of living, that is what every neighbourhood deserves. It was a chance to see how the findings and principles behind ICON’s work can be implemented in practice and, with the right support, that those places can thrive.
We have the insight and the evidence; action is what we now need. What we have had has clearly not worked. Let us look at education. In 2024, only 46% of disadvantaged pupils met the expected standard at key stage 2, compared with 67% of their peers. A growing divide that has set in by year 6 continues to widen in year 11 at GCSE.
After school, it gets worse. Disadvantaged young people are 65% more likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. If they leave school with fewer than five GCSEs they are 131% more likely to be NEET. Meanwhile, nearly three quarters of people in destitution are in receipt of social security. That tells us everything we need to know about how broken the safety net has become.
(1Â year, 4Â months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The point about community activities is ever present in my constituency of Carlisle, so I profoundly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is almost 35 years since St James Church in Carlisle, the church I was christened into, set up an op-shop in the community of Denton Holme to repay the loan it had taken to expand its parish centre. I am delighted to say that that op-shop remains today. It has been joined by a coffee shop, which is a real community hub in Denton Holme. But more than that, the diocese of Carlisle took on that op-shop model. Today, there are five shops, all specifically located in communities on our larger estates in and around Carlisle where there is real need. It is not just the goods that they are selling, but the fact that they have a model that is about outreach into those communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ability of our churches to diversify and innovate is one of their great strengths?
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.