Live Events and Weddings: Covid-19 Support

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. The emphasis on business grants for those businesses with premises is probably one of the factors that led to many people in the sectors we are debating today being denied financial support; the fact that a lot of them are also freelancers or self-employed is another factor. However, many of the people who were excluded from support the first time around are being excluded once again. Given the speed at which events happened, the Government could perhaps have been given a little latitude the first time for not covering everyone; eight months on and with the benefit of that experience, however, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone being left behind this time.

We need a commitment from the Government that this issue will be looked into urgently, because by the time the current scheme comes to an end, some people will have been trading for nearly two years and will not have been entitled to a penny. How can that be allowed to happen? I hope the Government will listen and offer a roadmap for the wedding and live events industries, with sector-specific support for the intervening period until we get back to some sense of normality. Frankly, telling those people to find another job is a cop-out.

Like other Members, I will talk about weddings because I have been contacted by many constituents who have had to cancel or rearrange their wedding days. The wedding industry has seen numbers restricted and then restricted some more: the limit of 30 at a wedding lasted for just two weeks before it was reduced to 15. That means either that there was a specific piece of evidence that suggested the limit needed to be reduced for weddings but not for the funerals that took place during that fortnight, or that the limit should never have been 30 in the first place. Neither of those alternatives engenders much confidence that the Government are on top of things.

How can a judgment have been formed to change the limit back to 15 in just a fortnight? Given the restrictions to 30 or 15 guests at weddings, many people consider the wedding industry to be closed in all but name. By including outside suppliers in that number, couples have been placed in the invidious position of having to choose whether their photographer or granny attends. I do not think that is right at all.

The wedding industry did not get any benefit over the summer from the “eat out to help out” scheme, despite many venues being able to hold significantly more guests in a covid-secure way than restaurants can. Instead, we saw the sector largely ignored, despite how much it is worth to the economy and how much it benefits people in other, associated industries such as hair, beauty and photography. An important question that I have received from my constituents who have seen their wedding days restricted or cancelled is why they could go and sit in a restaurant with over 100 people socially distanced at separate tables, yet they could have only 15 people attend a wedding venue that can safely hold ten times the amount. I have to agree with them: on the face of it, it seems illogical. Given the massive financial impact that such decisions have had, I hope there is strong evidence behind that distinction being made.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. He will know how vital it is to keep public support for these measures and to ensure that they are evidence-based, logical and clearly explained.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Covid-19: Maternity and Parental Leave

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact of covid-19 on maternity and paternity leave. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard today, being a new parent is an exciting, scary and, of course, tiring experience—it is rather like being a new Member in this place. Being new parents is a challenge at the best of times, when they have the support of extended family, can attend baby groups and can leave their homes when they please, but having a newborn baby in the middle of a lockdown means that all those challenges are multiplied. That is why Ministers need to recognise the unprecedented experience of those who have become parents during the pandemic.

We have seen various offers and support schemes, but those on parental leave have had no such offers—it is time that we did something about that. As we know, in the time that we have waited to debate the petition—I am very pleased that Westminster Hall debates are back—many of the affected parents have had their maternity or paternity leave pass them by, and they are now grappling with the challenges of childcare during a pandemic. Some of those who have contacted me have had very supportive employers, and that is welcome, but it is not guaranteed. I have heard from other constituents who have not been able to access childcare and who have to consider whether they can return to their jobs at all. Others have had no choice but to take unpaid leave. The Government have previously suggested furlough as an option for people who cannot secure childcare. Personally, I do not think that is the right answer at all. When the Prime Minister said that he would expect employers to be reasonable in such circumstances and that that would be sufficient, it betrayed his lack of understanding about the reality of workplace discrimination.

People who have returned to work have experienced a significant portion of their maternity leave during the national lockdown. The possibility of seeing extended family and friends and attending covid-secure baby groups has opened up, but there are no guarantees. As we have already heard, it is very unlikely that those things will be able to continue in the way we would want. With localised lockdowns, inter-house mixing has been prohibited for many people, and we can see how that affects them on a day-to-day basis. A comment that I received from a constituent has really stuck with me. She said:

“Some days are so difficult. I’ve barely slept, the house is a mess and there is a huge pile of washing to be done. All I need is my mum to come round and hold my son whilst I do this.”

Simple and helpful small interactions often make all the difference.

Baby groups and support from family and friends not only benefit new parents; they are vital for the development of new babies, who look to interact and form new bonds. There will be babies who have had contact only with their parents and not with other babies, and they will take time to adapt to new childcare settings. Even the thought of that—never mind actually doing it—is quite a traumatic experience for parents and their babies. As we have discussed, we know the impact that the early years can have on the rest of a child’s development.

Women who have given birth during the pandemic, and those who are pregnant at present, continue to contend with restrictions on attendance at scans and medical appointments and on access to services. I have heard from constituents who felt a void because they could not see their health visitor in person, and who have been left in pain and distress because they have been unable to receive support from breastfeeding services.

Maternity leave should offer new parents the opportunity to recover from birth and time to adapt to the challenges of a newborn. New parents face having to catch up on missed appointments at the same time as returning to work, and that has many practical implications. The discrimination facing women who are on maternity leave, or who are returning from it, is well documented. As we have heard today, those difficulties are exacerbated in the worst of times. We know it is not business as usual at the moment, so why should it be business as usual for maternity and paternity leave? We should have some changes before it is too late.

Rented Homes: End of Evictions Ban

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I have had discussions with many stakeholders, including representatives of landlords, including the National Residential Landlords Association, which tells me that, according to its research, 90% of renters say that they have been able to meet their rent liabilities. Of the 10% remaining, who either have difficulty or fear difficulty, 75% have said that they have had a good response from their landlord in negotiating flexible repayments or other payment holidays. I think that the landlord community understands the challenge that the economy faces and that tenants face, and is working proactively to support them. We will continue to work proactively to support tenants through the measures that I have described.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As the shadow Minister pointed out earlier, back in March, the Secretary of State said that no one would lose their home as a result of losing income due to covid. It is quite clear from what the Minister has said today that he cannot guarantee that, can he?

[Christopher Pincher]

We have protected those tenants from eviction through the actions that we have already taken—actions that I believe have been supported across the House. We are now moving into a new stage of this crisis, where we are trying to normalise our economy and society. Of course I cannot guarantee that every tenancy will be retained, but we have taken steps to ensure that tenants are supported. We will continue to take those steps.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 General Committees

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again today, Mr Paisley. I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. There was a glaring omission from his speech: he failed to mention that it was a Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage. I am sure the next time he speaks he will acknowledge that it was the Labour party that introduced that groundbreaking policy.

That said, we will not oppose these statutory instruments; we recognise that any increase in people’s income is welcome, especially at this most uncertain time. However, there are areas where we would like more progress to be made. Millions of people are in work and struggling to make ends meet. Having a job is no longer a guarantor of a decent standard of living; indeed, work and poverty often go hand in hand. The current crisis has put a spotlight on certain parts of the economy, and the extremely precarious nature of many working people’s lives is coming to the fore. Millions of people are trapped in low pay or insecure employment, and the above-inflation increase presented still falls short of the promise made by former Chancellor George Osborne that it would reach £9 an hour by 2020. If the Minister wishes to clarify that there will be a further increase later this year to take us up to that level and honour that promise, that would be most welcome, although that would still fall short of Labour’s own plans.

An increase in the minimum wage will provide some help to the lowest paid, but it will not be the transformative change that we need. It will not end the growing levels of in-work poverty faced by millions. As we have discussed in recent weeks, it does not cover everyone in work. With the growing gig economy forcing more and more workers into sham self-employment, it is more important than ever that every worker is paid a decent living wage.

The minimum wage does not cover self-employment. According to the TUC, almost half of self-employed people do not earn the minimum wage. That means that around 2 million self-employed workers are now stuck on poverty pay. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? What is being done to address poverty pay among the self-employed? It may be that later announcements offer some temporary respite for people in this category, but I suspect they will not tackle the chronic low pay many in the gig economy or in self-employment face.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, there is a huge discrepancy in the minimum wage for people over 21 and those aged 18 to 20, which is exacerbated by the differential percentage increases presented today. Will the Minister set out why the Government believe that workers aged 18 to 20 should be paid a far lower rate than those aged 21 for exactly the same work, and even less than those under 25?

I declare an interest: I have two sons in the lower age bracket. They previously both worked in the same establishment, and would regularly complain to me that they worked just as hard as their colleagues over 25, did all the same duties and performed just as well, but those colleagues got a much higher pay rate. I have never been able to provide them with a satisfactory answer as to why that is the case. Hopefully, the Minister can make my home life a little easier by giving me a good answer for them. It goes without saying that not everyone under the age of 25 can benefit from staying with their parents. For them, the daily cost of living is no different than it is for those over the age of 25, in terms of rent, council tax, utility bills or whatever.

In representations to the Low Pay Commission, the TUC highlighted some of the areas where it is apparent that further Government action is required. In its submissions, the TUC said that there should be greater use of labour market enforcement orders and undertakings, recognising that those tools form an important bridge between informal action and official prosecutions. It would be good to know how many enforcement orders have been issued so far and how many undertakings have been given by employers. Of the undertakings that have been given, how many have gone on to be breached? Of those occasions where undertakings and orders have not worked, how many prosecutions have followed?

We agree with the TUC that the current fines imposed following prosecutions, which are typically only a few thousand pounds, do not act as a sufficient deterrent, particularly when the employer has been found to have engaged in what would be considered aggravating activities, such as falsifying records. The fines need to be substantially increased. As the TUC suggests, £75,000 would be reasonable. The fact that there have been relatively few prosecutions suggests that the resources, and possibly the appetite, for enforcement are not there.

The TUC submission also raised the routine evasion of the national minimum wage regulations by such devices as false self-employment, work trials and unpaid internships. I touched on false self-employment and the gig economy, but will the Minister enlighten us on how many of the 50-plus recommendations made in the good work plan have been implemented? Although it only scratches the surface of the multiple problems of exploitation and insecurity in the gig economy, the last time I checked, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of recommendations that had been implemented, so I would be grateful for an update on any progress.

Wearing my hat as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, we called some time ago for a ban on unpaid internships, recognising that to access certain professions they had become an almost compulsory rite of passage, including for jobs in the media, fashion and drama. Sadly, they are quite often used in politics, even in this place. Some people are expected to work for up to a year free of charge. In some places, of course, there is no guarantee of a job at the end.

I am aware that several private Members’ Bills are floating around that seek to put an end to that shameful practice. If the Minister were to indicate whether the Government intend to support any of those Bills, that would also be welcome. One further minor point from the TUC submission was the difficulty that third parties have in reporting national minimum wage infringements. Such people are often trade union officials who have in-depth knowledge and expertise in certain sectors. It seems sensible to make the most of that knowledge and experience with a workable protocol for referrals.

The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to go through every TUC recommendation, but one final important point that I wish to draw to the Committee’s attention is the proposal for public sector bodies to make it a requirement of any tendering or work outsourced that those providing the service ensure that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage. That does not require a change in legislation by the Government; it requires leadership. I would be grateful if the Minister advised on what efforts have been undertaken to encourage all those who contract with Government to pay the minimum wage and, for those who work in London, the London living wage?

The second instrument deals mainly with responses to a Government consultation on salaried hours and salary sacrifice. As the Minister explained, they are broadly technical changes to the rules around how minimum wage rates are calculated. The changes broadly afford the employer a greater degree of flexibility when determining the payments to be included within the regulations and the reference periods from which they are to be calculated.

We recognise that the regulations have been introduced as a result of responses made to the consultation by employers, but it is far from clear how significant and widespread the practices are. As the TUC said in its consultation response, there appears to be little evidence of that issue being raised regularly. We will therefore not oppose the regulations, but we urge the Minister to keep a close eye on how they work in practice because we would not want them to be used as a convenient way to game the system. One can envisage payments and reference periods being manipulated to create a certain outcome, which might well be within the letter, but not necessarily the spirit of the regulations,.

I would say the same about the reimbursement rules: on the face of it, they could be used as a Trojan horse to find even more matters to undermine the intended effect of the minimum wage. Care also needs to be taken to ensure that reimbursement takes place in a timely fashion. Although it is far from apparent that these changes will have any dramatic impact in one way or another, it is important that there are regular reviews of their implementation.

In conclusion, the Opposition believe it is important that the state sets minimum rates, but they are just part of the solution to low pay. We strongly believe that trade unions, as the collective voice of workers, are in the best place to negotiate with workers and employers about getting good pay and good terms and conditions for every sector in the country. We hope that one day we will see a Government that deliver that.

[Paul Scully]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The national minimum wage and the national living wage make a real difference to the lives of millions of workers in the country. I am glad that there is agreement—notwithstanding some questions, which I will try to answer to the best of my ability—that the lowest paid workers deserve an inflation-busting pay rise, which the regulations will provide.

The regulations mean that, from 1 April, workers on the national living wage will be over £3,700 better off over the year compared with 2015, when the policy was announced. That marks a 21% increase in the national living wage since 2015. Younger workers will also get more money through the increases to the national minimum wage rates. We know that most businesses support increases to the minimum wage rates. Through the regulations, we are reducing burdens on employers in meeting minimum wage obligations while maintaining worker protections.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned the technical changes to the second set of regulations. He is right to say that we will continue to review the situation. Part of the reason for the changes to the regulations is that there were some unintended consequences when the national minimum wage and national living wage were introduced—for example, the four-weekly cycles and the fortnightly cycles. Regardless of how extensive they are, smoothing out those problems is a sensible measure. Of course, we will continue to see how that works in practice, as we will with all those sorts of things.

In no particular order—I have papers strewn absolutely everywhere—I will try to cover some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about Government contractors paying a real living wage. The national minimum wage is a minimum wage, as is the national living wage. Good employers should always seek to go beyond that. The Department ensures that all contractor staff receive a minimum wage equivalent to the annual survey of hours and earnings median rate for their occupation or to the Living Wage Foundation rate, whichever is higher. It means that from April 2020 contractor staff will receive no less than £10.75 in London, or £9.30 outside London.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also asked why the national living wage is not higher. Right from the conception of the national living wage and the national minimum wage, we have been trying to work with businesses to ensure that employers and workers get the right balance. That goes to the question from the hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston about younger people. Again, we hope to rectify the situation so that, by 2024, 21-year-olds will be able to benefit from the higher amount. The Government took the decision to ensure that we get the right balance for younger people in the employment market. Our 16 to 21-year-olds’ unemployment rate is four times higher than that of people aged 25 and over. It is about having a balance between ensuring that they are paid a fair wage and that there are jobs and opportunities for them in the first place.

We are at the forefront on enforcement, and are significantly increasing the amount of money paid to HMRC for that purpose. HMRC will enforce in a proactive way, through education and visits to employers in the sectors that are most at risk. HMRC will have the financial resources to put where it considers best to tackle non-compliance. We have closed 770 investigations into employers between 2016-17 and 2018-19 that were opened with a potential apprenticeship risk. More than half those cases were closed with arrears found for the worker.

Several projects over the last few years have targeted apprentices and the sectors in which non-compliance is most prevalent, such as hairdressing and childcare. HMRC has undertaken many communication campaigns, including webinars and targeted projects, communicating rights and responsibilities to apprentices and their employers, to ensure that people know their rights, so that they can call out non-compliance, and that employers adhere to the rules.

HMRC also send text messages to nearly 350,000 apprentices when the annual rate increase comes into effect. We ensure that we have that communications campaign as soon as the increase is approved because it is so important that those who are the most vulnerable and the lowest paid understand their rights and how to complain. As I said in my opening remarks, HMRC also investigates anonymous complaints.

Clearly, unpaid internships are a concern, in terms of their being a barrier to social mobility. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to identify that they are often used in this place. In terms of tax and worker rights, the term “internship” does not mean anything. If someone is on work experience, just looking and learning, they are not working day to day and adding value to the company. If they are adding value to the company, and doing what could be seen as a worker’s job, the national minimum wage and national living wage legislation applies to them. Employers should look at that, and we will come down heavily on those who fail to adhere to it.

HMRC has contacted more than 2,000 employers found to be advertising unpaid internships online to ensure that they are compliant with the law. We have sent 35,690 letters to employers in those sectors that tend to use interns: publishing, media, the arts, marketing and fashion, as the hon. Gentleman said.

[Justin Madders]

I appreciate what the Minister says about how the nature of the work determines whether someone should be paid the minimum wage, but is it not a slightly artificial situation to expect someone at the very bottom of the ladder, in a very precarious situation in an internship, to report their employer to the national minimum wage helpline?

[Paul Scully]

By contacting 2,000 employers, we are reminding them of their legal responsibilities. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about vulnerability and whistleblowing in those situations, but that is why it is important that we give HMRC the resource that it needs to have proactive oversight, and to go to those companies that are most likely to offer and advertise unpaid internships, so that we can nip it in the bud. To build our understanding, so that HMRC can follow the matter up properly, we have incorporated a question into the Department for Education’s employer skills survey, asking 90,000 UK employers whether they have used unpaid interns. Results are expected in late spring 2020, and we will follow up on that.

On the protection of the low-paid self-employed, we will introduce the Employment Bill, which covers a couple of the questions that were raised. That is a result of the good work plan published by Matthew Taylor and his colleagues. We hope to tackle a number of the issues raised in that report and will publish the Bill as soon as we can to ensure that it gets scrutiny from, and involvement of, all parties in its development. I look forward to introducing the Bill and having debates on it so that we continue to lead on workers’ rights.

Planning for the Future

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am very aware of my hon. Friend’s opposition to this plan and that of many of his colleagues—I would say Conservative colleagues, but it is not even exclusively Conservative colleagues. Indeed, I believe the shadow Secretary of State is opposed to Andy Burnham’s plan. It is clearly not proving popular in my hon. Friend’s part of Greater Manchester. We will have to see what happens in the mayoral elections, but I am sure my hon. Friend will campaigning strongly to protect the wishes of local people in his community.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The announcement on the new cladding fund is welcome, but it remains to be seen whether it will be sufficient to cover all the issues that have been talked about today. I have a specific question about the detail. Leaseholders are paying an awful lot of money for waking watches at the moment. Will that be reimbursed as part of this fund?

[Robert Jenrick]

The fund will operate like the 18-metre ACM fund, in that it will be available only for the costs of the remediation works themselves, not for any service charge fees that might be incurred in the interim. We want to see this work done as quickly as possible, because I am very conscious of the fact that those waking watches are causing meaningful costs to people. There are cases where people are finding it extremely difficult to meet those costs.

Housing and Planning

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I will talk about Mostyn House in Parkgate, which was originally a boarding school and is now a listed building. Once the school closed, the site was certainly attractive to developers.

Revised plans to build apartments into the fabric of the old school were submitted halfway through its redevelopment. Despite the many efforts of under-resourced local authority enforcement officers, the developer, PJ Livesey, continually drags its feet, with the result that there is a list of outstanding works as long as your arm. Planning permission was only finally achieved some five years after residents first moved in. Developers have similarly patchy records elsewhere in the country, but because the system lacks the capacity to challenge these people, they continue to get away with it.

I have long spoken about the industrial scale mis-selling that arose as part of the leasehold scandal, and we finally saw official recognition of that last week from the Competition and Markets Authority. The situation at Mostyn House is slightly different but has many similarities. Little specific legal information was provided at the initial stage, particularly regarding planning and the leasehold position, and little documentation was produced in respect of service charges. What was provided was misleading and inaccurate on ongoing costs. There were also financial incentives to use panel solicitors and pressure to exchange contracts within a tight timescale.

Many people buying these apartments were experienced professionals whose concerns about those issues were assuaged at the time by the developer’s sales staff, who confidently stated that the purchase was covered by a Premier Guarantee warranty, which gave the buyers a 10-year guarantee similar to the National House Building Council’s. That sounds good, does it not—a Premier Guarantee warranty? It sounds pretty solid, and something to give certainty. Being compared to the NHBC’s guarantee gives it an air of respectability.

However, buyers might find that they have more rights if something goes wrong with their kettle. It is at best a dispute resolution service, not a guarantee, and is seriously compromised by virtue of being funded by the developers against whom it is meant to enforce the guarantee. Premier not only provides the warranty on the build of Mostyn House but also acts as the approved inspector in respect of building regulations. Premier is effectively employed as the building control and building regulation compliance body to inspect, approve and guarantee works undertaken by the developer that it is supposed to be insuring against.

After four years of back and forth, Premier’s surveyor recently viewed the development and agreed with the defects raised by residents. However, Premier is not prepared to progress the claims, even though water is pouring into apartments right now from the defective roofs, gutters and walls. Premier said:

“The remit of our service is to attempt to bring the two parties together, investigate the dispute and make recommendations…That being said, the conciliation service will not be suitable for all disputes.”

That is not a guarantee or warranty; it is a cop-out.

It is clear that some works by the developer were non-compliant, as additional fire separation works and modifications have had to be undertaken since occupation took place. How did Premier sign off those works in the first place? It is plainly evident that there has been a general lack of supervision of the development during its construction and a lack of inspections by the approved inspector. If it finds too many faults, it will have to pay out under its own insurance policy, funded by the developer. It is therefore easy to see how the temptation to be less than thorough could arise.

My constituents have been let down. The ombudsman has proven toothless and the Solicitors Regulation Authority ineffective. Indeed, anyone who cares to look at Trustpilot ratings for the ombudsman, the SRA and Premier will see that there is very little customer satisfaction anywhere in the country. There is a wholesale failure of regulation across the board on many issues, including in this case and others we have heard about. It is time that the Minister and the Government listened and sorted out this shambles once and for all.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We will have to drop the time limit on speeches to three minutes.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on securing the debate, and pay tribute to the work that he has done so far. I want to put on the record my co-chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and the fact that I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which brings its expertise to the all-party group and to the many people left high and dry as a result of the scandal.

Indeed, I wonder who people would have turned to if the LKP had not been there. It has heard, as we have, from many leaseholders up and down the country who have been placed in an impossible position—unable to pay for remedial work or obtain finance for it, and unable to sell their home until the work is done. They have been left stranded and effectively abandoned.

The debate may be technical and at times slightly legalistic, but at the heart of it are people such as those we have heard about today, who are looking for a bit of leadership and hope. There is clearly a tension between what the Government consider to be the moral case for not passing remediation costs on to leaseholders, and the legal position, by which freeholders may be entitled to recover costs from the leaseholder.

Although the Government’s pledges so far have to a significant extent removed the potential liability for some, there are still costs that can be visited on the leaseholder—and not just in relation to ACM cladding. There is a lack of clarity about other types of cladding and about who is responsible for the many waking watches that have now become necessary. At the moment there are serious doubts about whether the private fund is being utilised properly, or at all. Applications continue to be processed, but we do not know how much, if any, of the fund has been spent. Crucially, we do not know what will happen to those sites where no application has been made at all.

It should be clear that the longer it takes to resolve the issues, the more innocent leaseholders will have to pay out to fund the waking watches. That means thousands of pounds, needlessly spent, that they will probably never get back. Statements from Ministers are not enough. Talk about morality is not enough. Saying that there is a strong expectation on freeholders to put matters right is not enough. There is a lottery at the moment. Depending on the insurance company, the freeholder, the developer, the terms of the lease and the type of cladding involved, any outcome is possible. It seems to me, and probably to most people in the Chamber, that in the absence of someone stepping forward to put matters right, if a property was built in accordance with the regulations at the time, but is now considered unsafe, that must ultimately be the responsibility of the Government.

My all-party parliamentary group co-chair is the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who unfortunately cannot be with us today. He joins me in that analysis and says:

“We have been grateful for the initiative of the Select Committee and we ask them to hold hearings—leaseholders’ voices must be heard. Government and parliament have imminent work to do. That is the way to justice. See the evil. Do good. Recognise the people speaking through the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.”

We need to hear those leaseholders’ voices. The LKP recently did a survey of 117 different sites where people are affected by the issues, and the findings are stark: 90% of people surveyed said that the Government had provided “No help at all”. That has to change, and very soon.

Homelessness

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on their excellent maiden speeches. I was particularly pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who in his previous life did an awful lot to help working people in my constituency and throughout the north-west. If he shows the same passion and determination to fight for justice here, he will serve his constituents proudly.

During the four years I have been here, I have noticed—as I am sure other Members have—a significant increase in the number of people sleeping in doorways on my walk into work. This morning, as on most mornings, there was clear evidence in many of the streets that people had been sleeping there the night before, and this morning, as on most mornings recently, there were people sheltering in the subways outside this place. I feel ashamed that people are sleeping rough outside the corridors of power in one of the richest countries in the world. We must do better. We also know that rough sleeping is only the most visible form of homelessness, and that there are many people whose homelessness is less visible.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend is right to speak of the sense of shame that I think we all feel when we see people sleeping outside Westminster tube station, but they are not just sleeping there. Someone actually died outside Westminster tube station. How much should that shame all of us?

[Justin Madders]

It is a complete shame. I am going to talk about the number of deaths in a minute or two.

I want to say a bit more about the invisible homelessness: those living in temporary accommodation or relying on families and friends and sleeping on sofas. Many, including in my local authority, are in temporary accommodation far away from their families, their work or their school. Children are sometimes missing out on their education because they cannot get to school from where they have been placed. That accommodation is better than nothing, but this shows just how much pressure there is on the system.

It has not always been this way. In 2010, the end of rough sleeping appeared to be in sight. It is not inevitable; it can be prevented. Indeed, the Government seem to accept that rough sleeping can be prevented by setting a target to eradicate it by 2027, but even one night out in the cold is one too many, and seven years is a very long time for those currently experiencing homelessness. The Government have said that that is also the year by which this country will have full 5G coverage. I know which one I would like to see delivered sooner.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, the number of people who have died while sleeping rough or in emergency accommodation is a terrible, damning statistic. It is up by 51% in the last five years, rising to 726 people in 2018. That is the equivalent of two people dying almost every night. That is more homeless people dead in one year than there would be Members in this Chamber if it were full. Yet, according to the Government, ending rough sleeping is as much of a priority as dealing with 5G. These are real men and women, who are on average younger than me. Their deaths are premature and entirely preventable, and it is a stain on this country that we do not do more to stop this happening every night of the year.

If the Government are to reach their target of halving rough sleeping by 2022 and ending it by 2027, they must address the key drivers behind homelessness, including spiralling housing costs, lack of social housing, insecurity for private renters and cuts to homelessness services—all the things we have touched on in the debate. Let us not forget that we have had a net loss of 60,000 social homes through sales and demolitions in the last few years, despite the totally hollow pledge from David Cameron for the one-for-one replacement of houses lost through the right to buy. That has been one of the failures of this Government, and it has to change.

Shelter tells us that the leading cause of homelessness is the loss of a private rented home, and I have concerns about the way that people in that situation are not given much help. They are given no special priority and they have to wait until an eviction order is granted by the court, which puts more costs, pressure and stress on them. We also know that those extra costs make it even harder for them to get a new home of their own. We absolutely need to do more, and I am glad we have debated this subject today.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I speak as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, which I got involved with in 2016 because of the very visible rise in homelessness in my community in Southwark. Southwark Council deals with the highest number of homeless applications in London. It has 11,500 households on the waiting list and nearly 2,500 households in temporary accommodation, but despite significant problems and severe cuts to Southwark’s funding since 2010, the council also has the largest council house building programme in the country, with 11,000 new homes in the pipeline. Today, its information line is showing the 172 sites across the borough where those homes will appear. My first ask is that the Government should match Labour’s ambition in the national council house building programme.

On local housing allowance, the main problem is affordability. There are almost no properties in Southwark that are affordable at the current LHA rate or at the rate it will reach in April. The Government must reflect local prices in rates. At the extreme end of homelessness is rough sleeping. The Secretary of State described it as a serious moral failure, but there is no accurate measurement of rough sleeping. The local authority headcount is an insufficient estimate. Ministers say that they will end rough sleeping by the end of 2024, but in 2018 the total reduction in the number of rough sleepers was 74. At that pace, it will take until 2081—57 years behind schedule. It would take the Government six decades to tackle a problem that they have created in one. They must develop a robust measure of the problem.

In 2018, a ministerial taskforce on homelessness and rough sleeping was created, but the Department refuses to reveal when it meets. It claims that that information cannot be disclosed because it involves confidential communications. Only under this Government has tackling homelessness become a state secret. I hope the Minister will agree to be more accessible and transparent about those meetings.

The Office for National Statistics has revealed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) just mentioned, that two homeless people died on our streets every day last year. That is unacceptable, but what is worse is the normalisation of those deaths. None of them is investigated and no one asked whether they could have been prevented. I want the Minister to ensure a safeguarding review of every death of a homeless person. That would help to identify the interventions that could have prevented the homelessness and the premature deaths.

[Justin Madders]

Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to advocate for the people who lose their lives, as he says, to understand what led them to that sad situation in the first place?

[Neil Coyle]

Absolutely. As the Secretary of State mentioned, there is often an overlap with mental health issues, but we are not going to identify the cause if the deaths are not investigated.

My final request today is that we use the Domestic Abuse Bill to help the 2,000 people last year who fled domestic violence and were provided an immediate refuge but did not qualify for long-term accommodation. The A Safe Home campaign aims to break the link between homelessness and domestic abuse. No one should be left facing a choice between returning to a violent, dangerous partner or being made homeless, and the Bill should ensure that everyone fleeing domestic abuse who is homeless is automatically considered in priority need. I hope that the Minister will agree today to meet representatives of that cross-party campaign to see how we can make that happen in the Bill.

Protection for New Home Buyers

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

In recent years, I have seen numerous examples in my constituency of shoddy and sometimes downright dangerous workmanship, and a lack of redress for homeowners. The all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment highlighted similar issues in reports in 2016 and 2018. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of the Government’s intention to act. I hope that, by sharing some of my constituents’ experiences and concerns, I can urge speedy progress, and help to inform the Minister’s thinking as policy is developed. I also hope that he will carefully consider the issues relating to the regulatory regime, enforcement and the operation of warranties that I will raise tonight.

May I start by placing on record my thanks to Martin Scott and Paul Hargreaves of solicitors Walker Morris, and Geoff Peter of New Build Guru, who have all been generous with their expertise in helping me to prepare for this debate? I also thank my constituents for bringing their concerns to my attention. They have shown great fortitude, and a determination that the problems that they have endured should not be suffered by other homeowners in years to come.

Let me give the House some idea of the defects experienced by my constituents. At a development in Stretford—undertaken by Mr Selcuk Pinarbasi through his family companies Pino Design and Build, and Talbot Gate Developments—homeowners showed me numerous defects that they found when they moved into their new homes, including unfinished and damaged bathrooms and fittings; floors, skirting boards, bannisters, windows and doors out of true; the measurements of a downstairs WC not complying with statutory requirements to enable wheelchair access; breaches of electrical safety regulations; and an incorrectly fitted gas sleeve.

In another development, in Old Trafford, buyers found that there had been failure by the developer to comply with conditions relating to external works including boundary treatments, security, lighting, landscaping and waste disposal. That developer, Mr Jason Alexander, was also behind the development of Aura Court, an apartment block on the border of my constituency and Manchester city centre that has been the subject of a “Granada Reports” programme highlighting the dangerous and incomplete state of the block, such that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue has put a number of enforcement notices in place. Issues there include damaged fire doors; cladding not installed on external walls and walkways; decking not installed on walkways; unauthorised window installation, affecting fire safety standards; waterlogging on escape routes; and dangerous staircase treads. Even so, the block remains occupied, despite its shoddy state.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This is a really important debate. I think lots of Members will have examples of such issues in their constituency. My constituents have also experienced a real difficulty getting the guarantees behind these developments actually enforced. Premier Guarantee, which is apparently endorsed by all household lenders, has been in dispute with some of my constituents for three years over a series of defects in the property—defects that are accepted by Premier. Premier is now suggesting that the case needs to go to independent arbitration—at my constituents’ expense—to resolve the issues, even though it accepts that the defects exist. Does that not show a fundamental need for the reform of the system?

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who does excellent work through the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. I will be saying a little more about the deficiencies of the warranty arrangements, including those provided by Premier, in a few moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I most certainly would support that suggestion.

There are a number of other actions that the Government could take to address the slippery state of affairs that exists around warranties. Will the Minister consider, for example, standardisation of warranty policies, with the use of clear and unambiguous language, and an end to unreasonable exclusions? Would the Government consider amending the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 so that warranty policies are brought within the meaning of “construction contracts” under section 104 of the Act? That would mean that disputes could at least be settled by the relatively quicker and less expensive route of arbitration, rather than people needing to pursue a court claim.

The Minister will know that the problems I have described are compounded for those who own leasehold property. Management companies should be under a positive duty to act in leaseholders’ best interests, but often they are powerless to claim on the leaseholder’s behalf under the defects cover that is taken out by and for the benefit of the developer and his design team, usually for a 10-year period, to cover total or partial collapse or some other latent structural defect. The position of leaseholders could be strengthened through new legislation to make it compulsory for management companies, and leaseholders, to benefit from decennial insurance, specifically requiring such insurance to be taken out, specifying minimum levels of cover and the term of the insurance, and giving leaseholders and management companies third-party rights to claim directly under these policies.

The Government could also strengthen the Defective Premises Act 1972. This legislation extends protection for a period of six years—a period that is obviously out of line not only with decennial insurance cover but with actions in tort, where claims are allowed for a three-year period from the date of knowledge, subject to an overall maximum of 15 years under the Latent Damage Act 1986. The limitations period in the Defective Premises Act could be extended to be consistent with tort actions to give owners more protection. This is particularly important following the case of Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, which means that the residential property owner cannot claim for economic loss in tort.

There is a further adjustment to the Defective Premises Act that I invite the Minister to consider. Section 1(1) sets a test that work should be done

“in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials…so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.”

That is a high bar when measured against the relevant test in consumer legislation, which refers to goods needing to

“meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory”

under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

[Justin Madders]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I think we are going to be tight on time for the Minister to respond, and I am covering—we are all covering—a lot of territory.

Is it right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the law should offer more protection when you buy a toaster than when you buy a house? Why is not the standard similar in relation to the purchase of residential property?

I would like to mention two issues that are outside the direct remit of the Minister’s Department but that none the less impact on the overall picture of protection for homeowners. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means that, even if a householder does successfully pursue a defects claim in court, they may struggle to recover costs from their unsuccessful opponent. Although conditional fee arrangements are still possible, success fees and after-the-event insurance costs cannot be recovered from the losing party. This is a big issue for defects actions, since these costs can leave successful litigants so out of pocket that they still cannot afford to carry out the work to remedy the defects that were the subject of the case in the first place. Will the Minister press his counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to exclude defects actions for residential property from the prohibition on recovery of success fees and after-the-event insurance costs so that a successful owner can use the damages awarded to carry out repairs?

The operation of company law also seems to assist rather than hinder unscrupulous developers, who can set up a new company for each development, then place the company in liquidation, leaving defects unaddressed and sometimes avoiding tax and money-laundering rules in the process too. One constituent has found neither Companies House nor the Insolvency Service very willing to act to prevent this from happening, even when the same developer has blatantly and repeatedly breached registration and company law requirements. How will the Ministry work with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that company law operates robustly against such practices by developers?

While I am aware of attempts by the industry to address homebuyers’ concerns through the five-star system, of proposals for a new homes ombudsman, of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ intention to draft new guidance for its members and regulated firms on the inspection of new residential building works and snagging, and of UK Finance’s role in relation to mortgage lenders and improving building standards, these protections will still be insufficient.

The more I have looked into this matter, the more shocked I have been by the extent of the problem, the utter unscrupulousness of some developers and the absence of meaningful protection for homebuyers, many of whom are making the most significant purchase of their lives. I am sure the Minister will recognise from this brief description of the problems experienced by my constituents and those of my hon. Friends that the case for holistic, far-reaching, regulatory and legislative reform is both urgent and compelling and that any measures introduced must have real teeth. The Government’s stated intention to act to strengthen buildings standards and safety is a real opportunity, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that point on the record. I hope that is one of the things we can discuss further in the weeks ahead.

We know that a stronger regulatory system is necessary, but it will not be enough to deliver the required cultural change, so we need industry to show the same leadership it has shown in successfully making building sites much safer for workers over recent years. They must also prioritise residents’ safety in the construction of high-quality buildings.

The Government welcome the action we have already seen from industry, especially the early adopters group, which has spearheaded the building safety charter. The charter demonstrates the commitment to putting building safety first, ahead of all other priorities. All those across the industry that are involved in the life cycle of a building should follow suit. The industry-led competence steering group has developed proposals for raising the competence of those working on buildings in scope of the new regime. We support the group’s proposals for an overarching system for competence oversight and have included them in our consultation as part of our package of measures to improve building safety. To drive progress further, the industry safety steering group, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, is holding industry to account for making practical and cultural change happen.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of leasehold. The debate has a particular bearing on leaseholders, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in that respect as well. We know that leaseholders can too often face unfair practices, poor management of properties and difficulties in taking action to address problems. We are clear that there is no place in a modern housing market for unfair leasehold practices, and we are undertaking a comprehensive programme to reform the leasehold system to ensure homebuyers are treated fairly and protected from abuse and poor service.

We are moving forward with legislation to reform the leasehold sector. This includes the ban on new leasehold homes, restricting future leases to ground rent of zero financial value and closing legal loopholes to prevent further unfair evictions. We are committed to helping current and future leaseholders. We welcome the recent report of the Law Commission on enfranchisement valuation. This included options on how to make the cost of buying a freehold or extending a lease cheaper, and we are now considering those in detail. We look forward to further reports from the Law Commission on the broader enfranchisement process, reinvigorating commonhold, and improving the right to manage later this spring.

We are deeply aware of the issues surrounding onerous ground rent and other unfair terms which some leaseholders are facing. We encouraged the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the extent of any mis-selling of leasehold properties, and we look forward to receiving its findings.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Hall]

I will not if that is okay, because of time.

The independent working group reported last year, and we are considering its recommendations. We will announce our next steps in due course. It can be expensive to take legal action against a landlord when that is necessary, and we are deeply concerned that leaseholders sometimes have to pay their landlord’s legal costs, even if they win the case. That can lead to leaseholders facing bills that are higher than the charges they were seeking to challenge in the first place, and it can also deter leaseholders from taking their concerns to a tribunal at all. The Government believe that leaseholders should not be subject to unjustified legal costs, and we will close the legal loopholes that allow that to happen. Again, I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s contribution on that matter, and perhaps we can take the issue forward in the weeks ahead.

Our plans to reform the housing sector will be a collaborative effort with colleagues across Government. We are also closing a gap in redress for leaseholders by extending mandatory membership of a redress scheme to freeholders who do not use a managing agent. Managing agents are already required to belong to a redress scheme, but there is no such requirement for freeholders who do not use an agent. This change will give more leaseholders access to redress in the future.

There is much reform still to come, but we have taken action already. We have worked with industry to secure commitments to help existing leaseholders through our industry pledge. The leasehold sector is clearly ripe for reform, and I assure the House that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that such reform can happen.

Let me turn to the new homes ombudsman. Problems in the current redress system threaten the quality of the experience and product for new homebuyers. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that homebuyers are treated fairly when things go wrong, and for developers to up their game and get things right from the beginning. The hon. Lady raised important points about warranties, including warranty exclusions, the provision of clear information to consumers, and the resolution services of warranty providers. It is the responsibility of the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate new build warranties and protect consumers. If a consumer is unhappy with the warranty provider’s action, they can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service for free. I agree that consumers must be provided with clearer information on warranty cover, and we are considering how that is best achieved.

The hon. Lady made a valid point about potential conflicts of interest where approved inspectors have dual roles. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that where they are involved in regulatory oversight, an approved inspector must be completely independent of the duty holder. The Government accept that recommendation and are working with the Joint Regulators Group, representatives of approved inspectors, and local authorities, to identify ways of minimising conflicts of interest and ensure sufficient regulatory capability and capacity under the new system. The industry has acknowledged many of those problems and is working to improve consumer confidence and trust.

In conclusion—time is short—the Government are committed to ensuring that the housing market works for everyone. That means building more of the right homes in the right places, and ensuring that when consumers purchase a new home, they have the protection they deserve and need. I assure hon. Members that as we work towards our ambition of building 300,000 new homes a year, residents in all tenures are safe. They must be treated fairly and be able to live in sustainable, high-quality homes.

Once again I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution, and we will make sure it is taken into account. I hope that we can organise those meetings in the week ahead and see what we can incorporate. I look forward to the Government driving forward that vital reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We are not able to cover everything in a half-hour debate, but that is one of the issues to which I think the House of Commons needs to return. We ought to have a full-day debate, preferably in Government time and on the Floor of the House, so that many other Members can speak and be a voice for their constituents.

As an example for those who do not read Private Eye on the day it comes out, there is a story about Rothesay Life, which apparently has £1.5 billion of loans. It can revalue the interest over 30 years and take it almost as instant profit. That is the kind of thing that leads people to say, “I am going to be greedy and get away with things as long as I can.”

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he has put into the campaign, which is growing stronger by the day. Some of the voluntary schemes that developers have entered into with leaseholders have a sting in the tail, with additional clauses carrying on afterwards. Does he agree that that example shows that it is important to get something on a statutory footing as soon as possible?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, we got the Competition and Markets Authority to hold an investigation into leasehold and—this is one of my tributes to the Government—I want to say how grateful we all are for the matters that have been sent across to the Law Commission, with the aim of getting practical and fair proposals that can be enacted.

One such important issue is lease extensions. There are more than 1 million leases, mainly of flats, that are coming to the 80-year limit where they cannot be mortgaged and where the marriage value starts coming in. At the moment, it is very difficult to find a cheap, easy and fair way of getting an extension on a lease. As and when we come to the elimination of new ground rents, we should find a way of putting a sunset clause on old ground rents, and give an incentive to freeholders to come forward with ways of getting some capital value now, rather than none later on. They have had the dawn of their money, and there needs to be some kind of sharing of the dusk that stops the money rolling in. We need to find a way of saying to them, “Let’s agree a simple chart; if you take 10 years of existing ground rent, don’t start saying you will take a doubling, and a doubling again after that.”

I interrupt myself to say that there is one announcement from the last couple of days that is potentially very dangerous to leaseholders, which is the proposal that people can put two more storeys on top of a block without planning permission. If the block is owned by an outside freeholder, that will ruin the chance of enfranchisement. If it is going to happen, all the value should go to the leaseholders, not the freeholder. In fact, it might provide an incentive for the leaseholders to buy the freehold and then agree among themselves how to deal with building on, and having a bigger community. As I said, I own a lease and part of a freehold of a block in Worthing. I am also contracted to buy a leasehold flat that is being built at the moment, which might be built in three years’ time. If anyone thinks that I have an interest in this issue, I do—if I get any benefit from it, I will give it to a good cause.

To go back to LEASE, MPs have had difficulty with its two previous chairs. The first, Deep Sagar, showed no understanding at all that LEASE should not be helping rapacious freeholders or clever managing agents to screw money out of leaseholders. He moved on, but I must say incidentally to the civil service appointments people that they should count how many public appointments he has had—I think he has had more than the number of years I have had in the House of Commons, which is 45. The second chair was Roger Southam, whom I took on trust when he was appointed. Others said that he was not trustworthy. It turned out that I was wrong and they were right.

I hope that when a permanent chair is chosen for LEASE—it now has an interim chair—the stakeholders will be consulted on the process and, if possible, given a chance to comment on who might be on the shortlist. If they do not want to trust me, perhaps they could ask the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse or someone else to bring an impartial view. LEASE has been led for many years by Anthony Essien. I have no complaint about him; I have treated him with respect on every occasion, and vice versa.

LEASE has been changing: it is now unequivocally on the side of leaseholders, thanks to the intervention of Gavin Barwell, who was the first Housing Minister to get a grip on what was needed—he provided leadership in the Department, and I am glad that the Department has responded. LEASE’s website now has more than 100 categories under which people can interact and get some advice. The problem is that LEASE could not give all the advice on practical things.

For example, on the Grenfell Tower cladding issue, when the Government rightly said that no social tenant should have to carry the cost of re-cladding, the private tenants were left stuck, either in public or private blocks. The advice that the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership gave was right, while the advice that LEASE gave—to go to court—was wrong, because the tribunals had to reach the unfair conclusion that the leaseholder was stuck with the cost.

I pay great tribute to the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who got the Government to agree—perhaps against the advice of some civil servants—to carry the cost. He solved a problem that would otherwise have hit many small people.

There are other issues that I could cover at some length. I pay tribute to the National Leasehold Campaign, and to Katie Kendrick and Jo Darbyshire; to Victoria Derbyshire’s programme on BBC 2, which gave the issue prominence at a time when it mattered; to Patrick Collinson of The Guardian; to whoever advises Strobes at Private Eye on leasehold issues; and to others.

I declare this in public: if any of these big property interests threaten defamation proceedings against any of the leasehold campaigners, I will say on the Floor of the House of Commons exactly what can be said about them, in spades—I won’t hold back. Up to now I have been pretty restrained, but I want people to know this: do not bully those who campaign for justice. We are all on the side of the small voice. By all means have discussion, and by all means have disagreement, but do not think that you can get away with lawyers’ letters of the kind that get prominence every now and again in Strobes’s legal pages.