Representation of the People Bill

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.

The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.

The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm.

Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.

[Kevin Bonavia]

We have just heard the Conservative definitions of a child and an adult, but according to the law in this country, there is no single definition. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, the driving age in this country is 17, and the voting age has gone down over the decades. Surely we should be thinking about what it means to be able to vote. By bringing the voting age down to 16, we are bringing that to people who have the capacity to vote and who actually will vote. There is also evidence out there that 16-year-olds voting in Scotland are more likely to carry on voting. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that will be of benefit to our country—to the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.

[Kevin Bonavia]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.

[Sir James Cleverly]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.

[Kevin Bonavia]

The shadow Secretary of State has asked, on a number of occasions, whether we agree with his so-called legal definition. The legal definition is always for the purposes of the law for which it is intended, so the Children Act definition is for the purposes of that Act, and what we are debating today is for the purposes of voting.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point?

I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?

As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so.

If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.

Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.

Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.

The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.

A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.

Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.

We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.

On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.

Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]

[David Simmonds]

I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.

In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.

New Towns

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing the debate—I am hugely passionate about this topic—and for giving me the opportunity to speak for seven minutes about Harlow.

How do we begin to describe a new town like Harlow? Do we talk about the houses—the bricks and the mortar, the gardens and the trees? Or do we talk about the people—the young and the old, and everyone in between? I think we start with the people, but I am also going to start with the history. Harlow was designated a new town in 1947, as part of the post-war reconstruction Many people moved to Harlow from London to start a family, giving Harlow its first nickname: Pram Town. The masterplan for Harlow was drawn up by Sir Frederick Gibberd, with the help of Dame Sylvia Crowe and others. It was designed to have a sense of community, with every neighbourhood having its own shopping “hatch”, play park and green spaces, and even its own public art. I do not think there are many places where you can walk down the street on yours daily rounds, go into an estate and come across a Rodin, a Barbara Hepworth—or, in fact, the odd concrete donkey!

The sense of community still shines through today—every time I go and watch Harlow Town football club, pop in for a pint at the Hare, or visit the Parndon Mill art studios, the Gibberd garden, or our beautiful town park for the parkrun, which I am now doing slightly more often than usual. We see that sense of community in Harlow’s many incredible charities and community organisations, many of which I have had the pleasure of visiting during my 18 months as Harlow’s MP and two of which—the Youth Concern Trust and Razed Roof— I have the honour of being a trustee of. We also see that sense of community in the way our Harlow residents supported one another during the terrible pandemic—and, yes, in how people often support me too.

As to Gibberd’s design for the estate, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said about housing numbers. I defy anyone to walk around Longbanks and explain the logic of that sort of numbering system. Harlow was designed to be a place in which managers and workers lived side by side, as part of the same community and with the same ambition to achieve. I think we have lost sight of that a little. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) mentioned the decline in manufacturing, which has had a huge impact on places like Harlow.

As I have said a number of times, Harlow might not be the oldest new town—

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm which is the oldest new town?

[Chris Vince]

I think my hon. Friend knows fairly well! But Harlow is nearly the oldest new town.

Harlow might not be the best new town—well, I think it is, although probably not if you are a fan of being able to park your car anywhere near your house—but it absolutely is the new town with the biggest heart. I hope when the Government consider the creation of a new generation of new towns, they will look at the things that did work in Harlow. Creating a new town is not just about bricks and mortar, about trees and gardens; it is about people and communities too. I am proud to represent Harlow and its history, but I am determined for it to have a strong future.

The Government’s commitment last year to ensuring that Harlow is the permanent home of the UK Health Security Agency is huge. As I mentioned earlier, the decline of the manufacturing industry has had an impact on Harlow. We still have some fantastic industry, including Raytheon and other important businesses, but the decline has affected us. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friends about the need for continual investment in our new towns, so that they survive and thrive, and for their long-term stewardship.

Let me give the House one interesting fact about Harlow before I wind up my remarks. Harlow has a fantastic cycle network—of course, it needs more investment, and I will always push Essex county council to continue investing in it—and thanks to that network, as well as to our green wedges and green fingers areas, which are hugely important to the sense of community, it is possible to get from one side of Harlow to the other without ever going on a main road.

Everybody deserves a place in the history of Harlow—even those who, like me, came to Harlow from afar. Together, we are the perfect blend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to come second—on this occasion—to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Stevenage may not have a concrete donkey, but we have Donkey park, as well as a concrete polar bear in Chells, of which we are very proud. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate on the 70th anniversary of her new town.

My new town of Stevenage celebrates its 80th anniversary as the UK’s first new town this year. It shares its birth year with my mum, whose 80th birthday is today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] After celebrating my new town, I will celebrate with her later. My mum was born and grew up in Glasgow. Like many people who grew up in the ’50s and ’60s, she sought a new life. She did not end up in Cumbernauld; she took a bit of a circuitous route to London, via Malta. She had ambitions for her family—as did my dad John and my brother Gary. I ended up in Stevenage, and the town has really welcomed me, as somebody who wanted to start a new life there. That is the story of new towns. There are the people lucky enough to be born and to grow up there, but there are also those who choose to start a new life there. Their aspiration becomes the community’s aspiration.

As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is finding out, creating and developing new towns is not easy. One of his predecessors, Lewis Silkin—then the Minister of Town and Country Planning—came to the large village of Stevenage in the 1940s. He found that the sign at Stevenage station been replaced with one that said “Silkingrad”—he was not assured of a warm welcome. However, he showed determination and said, “We are going to build this town.” So we did, and it was a huge achievement. It showed the benefit of planning and thinking ahead—not just about the homes that people needed, but about the schools, jobs, parks and so on. To this day, people’s first impression of Stevenage is just how green it is.

If someone is lucky enough to work in Stevenage—whether they live there or come just for work—they will find how easy it is to get there. We have great companies, developed over generations, such as MBDA and Airbus, in the defence and aerospace sectors. More than a quarter of the satellites in space were made in Stevenage. The Storm Shadow missiles that we send to Ukraine, to help in the defence against the horrific invasion by Putin’s Russia, are made in Stevenage. New towns like Stevenage play their part.

This debate is important because, as Members have said, there are lessons to learn about what we can do to rejuvenate new towns.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning came to Stevenage weeks after the general election with Sir Michael Lyons. He was there with a fellow Minister, Baroness Sharon Taylor, who is Stevenage-grown; she has helped to shape Stevenage and is doing a great job of shaping homes across the country. They saw a new development in the town centre, with new affordable homes to deal with today’s housing crisis. Stevenage was built in response to the housing crisis back then. The challenge now is even more immense. Stevenage once had 38,000 council homes. That is now down to 8,000. I have knocked on the doors of people living in private rented accommodation, and they feel that insecurity. This Government are working to fix that, but we need to get these new homes and rejuvenate our town centres, as Members have said, and that ain’t easy.

The lesson from development corporations relates to what we do once they are up and running and have done their job. In Stevenage, the development corporation was transferred to hedge funds and pension companies in 1980, and it is now much harder to rejuvenate those town centres. One of the biggest concerns I hear on the doorstep is about homes and what is happening in the town centre. We have to not just learn the lessons for new new towns but make sure that we reshape our existing new towns.

Stevenage remains ambitious. We have a council and a council leader in Richard Henry who are leading the push for a £1 billion regeneration project in the town centre, including Stevenage Station Gateway, which will need Government support and will involve a new station, new homes and new education facilities right in the heart of our town. Stevenage is not just a commuter town, although many people do come and go from Stevenage for work; it is also a community with neighbourhoods and amazing individuals who I am very proud to cite time and again in this place. They did not just turn up there by luck; it is because of the foresight of people such as Lewis Silkin, Monica Felton and Eric Claxton, who were the pioneers of Stevenage. We now have the chance to learn from them as we build our new towns for the future.

Supporting High Streets

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

This motion is a masterclass in political gaslighting. It claims to support high streets, but proposes slashing public investment, scrapping workers’ rights and deregulating the very protections that keep our communities safe. It is not really a motion; it is a demolition notice for our high streets and our town centres. Neglect, not regulation, is the real threat to our high streets. Under the previous Tory Government, shoplifting rose by 71%, street theft increased by 59%, and violence against shop workers hit 2,000 incidents per day. This is the legacy of the Conservative party—a record of abandonment and inaction. The Conservatives let crime spiral and neighbourhood policing collapse. This Labour Government are reversing that damage.

Through the safer streets summer initiative, more than 500 towns, including my town of Stevenage, are seeing a surge in visible policing, targeted enforcement against shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, and bespoke local action plans to tackle violence against shop workers. This is not a short-term stunt; it is the first wave of Labour’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, backed by a £200 million investment this year alone. This Government will deliver 13,000 new officers and police community support officers by the end of this Parliament and £5 million for our pride in place programme, giving communities the power to reclaim boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and block unwanted gambling and vape outlets. This means boots on the ground—not empty promises—restoring safety and confidence to our high streets.

This motion offers slogans about energy bills, but it is Labour that offers systemic reform. We are reforming the energy market to make it fairer and more transparent for businesses and accelerating clean, home-grown energy to reduce long-term costs and dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets. We are not capping chaos; we are ending it.

The Opposition attack the Employment Rights Bill—a Bill that bans the fire and rehire practices that caused the exploitation of so many workers under the previous Government, introduces bereavement leave for grieving parents after pregnancy loss, ends non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, and lifts standards for thousands of my constituents in insecure work. The Opposition call it red tape; I call it basic decency. The Bill will reward decent employers by punishing the bad behaviour of others.

In their motion, the Opposition talk about protecting post offices, pubs and pharmacies, which we all want to do. But how dare they? How dare they preach about protecting post offices? The Conservative candidate in a by-election in the Roebuck ward of Stevenage sent out leaflets to my constituents falsely insinuating that the local post office was closing—this was scaremongering. I checked with the post office, and there was no threat of closure. It was part of a national campaign by the Conservatives, telling people, “Your local post office is being closed,” with no evidence behind it. It is merely a cynical attempt to mislead voters.

[Graham Stuart]

The previous Conservative Government had a national guarantee of 11,500 post offices, which this Labour Front Bench has put under review. That means that there is a threat to post offices across this country. That was highlighted. If anyone has gone further than that about a specific post office, that would obviously be wrong. The truth is that there is a threat to the post office network, and it is one instituted by the Labour Front Bench. Can the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we, as politicians, have a duty to explain facts and base our arguments on evidence, which was not done in this case. I put it to all politicians and would-be politicians to base their arguments on facts.

This motion is a Trojan horse. It dresses up deregulation as a gift to our constituents while gutting the very foundations of our high streets—fairness and community power. If we accept the premise of this Tory motion, we are no better than a modern-day Troy.

Labour is rebuilding what the Conservatives hollowed out of our communities: safety, fairness, opportunity and, dare I say it, pride. We are putting power back in the hands of local people, bobbies back on the beat and dignity back in the workplace. Our high streets do not need hollow gestures; they need real change. Only this Labour Government are delivering it.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend is saying really resonates with me. Does he agree that the fact that pride in place is a 10-year fund allows us to be really strategic about the regeneration of our high streets? Instead of them receiving bits and bats of money for six months with really tight frameworks, local people will be empowered by the fund to regenerate their own area.

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Pride of place is about actually getting our local communities involved. They know their high streets best, and we should work with them to use that money for long-term strategic decisions.

I oppose this motion. It is illiterate and has no answers for our future, it does not add up economically, and it ignores the good work that this Government are already doing for our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

They need to go back on YouTube—we’ll encourage a bit of online interaction—and listen to that fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition about the £47 billion of savings that can be made, that will be supported by the public, and that can help us balance the books and save high street businesses.

Another issue facing businesses that has been highlighted by many hon. Members is the impact of energy bills. Britain has the highest electricity prices in the world. It does not have to be this way. The situation is making our high street businesses less competitive and stifling economic growth. That is why we would axe the carbon tax and scrap net zero subsidies to reduce the cost of electricity. That would of course benefit consumers, but also businesses; the average restaurant would save £5,100 a year.

The third point in relation to our plan for stronger high streets is stronger policing. Under this Labour Government, crime is on the rise in high streets across the country, eroding community trust and public safety. It is having a huge impact on our high streets. Indeed, just a few weeks ago I met Costa Coffee, a well-known high street chain. Despite its huge resources, its representatives told me that they face constant thefts, and even ram-raids to steal sandwiches and drinks—an unbelievable situation.

Even Greggs—one of the nation’s favourites, and mine—has had to start locking up its sandwiches, soft drinks and sausages rolls in some locations, because of prolific shoplifting. In fact, shoplifting has risen by 20% in this Labour Government’s first year in office. That is the highest figure since modern records began, but it is no surprise because police numbers are falling. There are 1,316 fewer police officers since this Labour Government came to power.

As part of our plan, we will hire 10,000 extra police officers backed by £800 million in funding. We will end Labour’s early release scheme to keep criminals behind bars, introduce intense police hotspot patrolling in areas to cover serious violent crime and robbery, and treble stop and search to take knives and weapons off our streets. We will also redirect resources to catch real criminals, abolishing non-crime hate incidents so that police can spend 60,000 more hours policing our streets and not our tweets.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Will the shadow Minister confirm that under the previous Conservative Administration, thieves could get £200 worth of goods with impunity, and that has changed under this Government?

[Matt Vickers]

That is a complete and utter myth. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the Government facts and stats that will confirm that 90% of all cases of people charged with shop theft related to goods under £200—would he believe it? Indeed, I have a question for him and I will let him answer: could he name a single police force in the country that had a policy of not actioning thefts of under £200?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I am very happy to intervene. We are talking about changing the status quo under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

[Matt Vickers]

Not a single police force in the country had that policy, and 90% of all cases with charges for shop theft involved goods under the value of £200. That is a fact, and what the hon. Gentleman says is a myth.

At the heart of our high streets lies entrepreneurship—those incredible people who get up early, take the risks and build something. They create jobs, wealth and opportunity. This Labour Government have spent the last year making it harder to start a business. That means that now just one in four young people who want to start a business do so, as highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses.

We need to cut red tape so that our businesses can breathe again. We need to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a bank account and engage with HMRC, and we need to expand business coaching in schools. It is no surprise that those on the Government Benches just do not get it; just one member of the Cabinet has started their own business, and less than half of them have ever worked in the private sector.

Let me conclude with this point. The high street is suffering. As a result, people who have invested their lives in creating businesses are suffering, those youngsters who might have been able to get their first job on the high street are suffering, and those older people who felt pride in their town for years and decades are now watching as shops are boarded up and they are suffering too. Analysis of insolvency notices has revealed that businesses are closing at the fastest rate since the world economic crash, and as a result 17% more people are without a job.

Tonight is a chance to join the Conservatives in backing the people who work hard and do the right thing. Any Member of this House who wants to support our high streets, the entrepreneurs who work hard and do the right thing, and more job opportunities for people—young and old—and any Member who wants to ensure that people can continue to have pride in their town centres should support the motion and our plan for stronger high streets. I commend the motion to the House.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off.

We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse.

I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.

Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.

Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Strategy for Elections

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member may have critiques of the first-past-the-post system, but it provides a direct relationship between Members of the legislature and local constituencies, which is really important. The Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, had the opportunity to introduce a referendum, but they lost that referendum. The supplementary voting system was implemented on the introduction of both mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. We believe that it is more appropriate for selecting single-person executives.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I declare a former interest as a lawyer specialising in election law. I can say from that previous life that the previous Tory Government left our election law in an unfair and dangerous state: unfair in that they made it harder for people to vote, and dangerous in that they did nothing to prevent foreign actors from spending millions of pounds, roubles or dollars to interfere with our democracy. Does the Minister agree that it is high time to take robust action to make our democracy safe and fair for everyone, and will she assure the House that this will be a speedy and fair process?

[Rushanara Ali]

I look forward to using the expertise of colleagues—not only in my party but in others—so that we get this right. It is in all our interests to close the loopholes that are so dangerous and damaging for our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Many Members from across the House have found that too many leaseholders suffer as a result of poor-quality services from managing agents. We are consulting on proposals to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, including a proposal to make minimum professional qualifications mandatory.

[Kevin Bonavia]

My constituent Ed, a leaseholder in Monument Court, Stevenage, has been trapped for years in an unsellable flat after the building failed its EWS1 assessment because Higgins Homes had not followed its own architectural plans. He has faced uncapped and unregulated service charges and utility billing, and the threat of disconnection, while seeing the saleable value of his property decrease by more than £70,000. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing a statutory route through which people like Ed can pursue legal action against a developer without bearing the full cost burden?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

As a Mancunian, I do not think I am in any place to tell Londoners what is in Essex and what is not.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

My constituency has been held back by 14 years of Conservative cuts to the county council and to borough and district councils, so I hope that the new Government’s devolution agenda will help rebuild and improve our local public services. Can the Secretary of State provide an update on the consultation with Hertfordshire county council and our 10 borough and district authorities?

[Mr Speaker]

Who wants it?