Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to have secured this important and timely debate with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). Today, I speak with two hats on, as the MP for Battersea and as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

It is undeniable that churches and religious buildings have a positive impact on our communities in constituencies across the country, and I intend to show examples of this throughout my speech. Churches such as St Mary’s in Battersea do valuable work in their communities every day, and their contributions are often delivered at no cost to the state but with such a great return for the communities in which they serve. That is part of their vocation to serve—their desire to reflect the values of Jesus Christ through their faith, love, hospitality and service to their neighbours. I hope that this debate will allow us to recognise the incredible work of our local churches and other religious organisations.

A parish church is often central to the community. It is a hub around which a village, town or city has grown. It gives a great sense of place. Parishes have a specific duty to serve all their communities, regardless of faith, background or affiliation. Our churches are not just there for Sunday services; they are active seven days a week.

I must declare my interest as an attendee of Holy Trinity Clapham, or HTC, which is a grade II listed building. The church supports the needs of its communities through services for victims of domestic violence and young families’ support services, as well as by serving breakfast to more than 200 people every week. Similar Church of England churches and cathedrals support more than 31,000 social action programmes annually. They deliver more than 14,000 of those projects themselves, while other projects are hosted by churches and carried out in partnership with volunteers and supported by donations.

The National Churches Trust’s “The House of Good” reports, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, clearly show the community benefit of churches: every £1 invested in any church creates a return for the community of £16. Dare I ask where else the Government could get a return like that?

Although a core activity of churches is worship, they do so much more. They are pillars for community, social action, culture and heritage. They support the national economy, offer apprenticeships for key trade and craft skills and are collectively one of the largest commissioners of the arts in the UK. They are drivers of regeneration and place making. They are well on their way to achieving net zero by 2030 across all their buildings. They are involved in running or supporting food banks, groups for the elderly or vulnerable, and parent and toddler groups, often in the places where they are most needed. They offer warm spaces during the winter. During the winter months in Battersea, St Peter’s, St Michael’s, St Barnabas’s and the Ascension church host night shelters, which I had the pleasure of visiting last winter.

The UK has 15,000 historic listed places of worship in use across all faiths and denominations: churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques and temples. Approximately 12,500 of them are Church of England churches or cathedrals, and in the past decade the number of listed places on Historic England’s heritage at risk register increased to 969, some 911 of which are Church of England buildings.

The listed places of worship grant scheme was introduced by the last Labour Government under the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, and it has been a lifeline in maintaining those buildings. Although the Church welcomes the continuation of the scheme for an additional year, the reduction from £42 million to £23 million a year and the new cap of £25,000 per place of worship jeopardise the ongoing future of many projects.

We know that 94% of applications are under the £25,000 cap and will not be affected, but 260 Church of England churches will be. Although that makes only 6% of claims on the scheme, the impact will be huge. The retrospective implementation of the new scheme is causing immense difficulty, preventing responsible budgeting, commissioning work on multi-year refurbishment schemes and good stewardship of the buildings.

It is preventing craft businesses, such as masons and glaziers, from taking on apprentices, as they are unable to guarantee work. Obviously, it is adversely affecting our communities, particularly those most in need of support. There is no doubt we need a long-term solution beyond the year-on-year extension.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and I have had a number of exchanges in the Chamber on this issue. In her role as a Church Commissioner, given the concerns she has raised about projects failing and craftsmen being put out of work, has she had any reassurance from the Government that schemes already started, even if above the £25,000 cap, will be allowed to progress so that the projects can continue?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Member is right that we have had many exchanges. He knows that I am firmly committed to ensuring that the scheme is extended and, more importantly, that schemes in train will be protected. I will come to that shortly.

It is time to give stability and certainty to these treasures of our built heritage. I will not list all 260 churches, as we do not have time. My own church of Holy Trinity, Clapham has raised more than £6.2 million for vital repairs designed to make the church more accessible to the local community. As I said earlier, it provides local communities with huge amounts of support, such as advice and advocacy on debt, providing hot meals and sport and social activities.

Other examples include Sunderland Minster, another grade II building, with a long-standing ministry to refugees and asylum seekers. It holds drop-in and collection days for food, clothes and children’s toys. All Hallows-on-the-Wall, London hosts a young person’s programme in its nave, which for 30 years has supported thousands of challenging and excluded young people across the city into work. Wells Cathedral’s “warm rail” initiative provides free donated clothes and winter coats, and offers a warm space and hot refreshments. Many churches support the warm welcome campaign in response to the cost of living crisis.

I share those examples to show the significant impact those churches have socially and economically. I know the Government recognise their impact and would not want to see any listed places no longer able to make their vital contributions to the communities they serve.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Member gives an eloquent account of how churches active in communities can have an impact. Another point concerns those buildings no longer being used for religious purposes. The Church of Scotland is divesting itself of a number of churches, including in East Neuk in my constituency. Does she agree that, even if those buildings are not being used for religious purposes, they need to continue as the community hubs she describes, with Government support?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point: churches are a place of worship, but they do so much more in their communities.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on behalf of the Church. She occupies a very important role and commands considerable respect for what she has been doing. I wish to add to the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just made about the closure of churches, particularly in rural parishes, which is becoming an increasing problem. In my constituency, we have experienced difficulty getting the Church to recognise that it too has an obligation to stand by the side of local communities when those wonderful and precious buildings are to be closed as places of worship, and that it must help find a community purpose for them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Church cannot ignore its responsibility?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I fully agree.

I turn to some of the work that churches do. The Church Commissioners already contribute considerable sums from their funds to provide grants to Church of England dioceses and support many projects, particularly in underserved communities. The Buildings for Mission project has provided £9 million for dioceses for 35 locally based church building support officers, and grants for minor repairs and improvement. Through the cathedral sustainability fund, the Church Commissioners have provided £30 million of targeted funding for cathedrals since 2017.

But no one organisation can provide support on its own; we all need to pull together to support these treasures. A bid to the National Lottery Heritage Fund or other grant funding may rely on the listed places of worship scheme to match funding. Last year, the Heritage Fund announced £100 million to support places of worship over the next three years, and parish giving continues to be a form of local support, but I say again that that will not be enough to support the work that every church needs to undertake.

Aside from their social and economic impact, church buildings contribute to the creative and performing arts by providing hundreds of locations for amateur and professional arts of all genres for the Government’s Arts Everywhere initiative. England’s heritage generates a £45.1 billion gross value added impact, supporting more than half a million jobs, and our cathedrals attract millions of visitors, fostering local economies and preserving our cultural heritage. I am sure the right hon. Member for Salisbury will touch on that in his remarks.

Does the Minister agree that our churches make an invaluable contribution to our communities? Will he raise with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport the following three key things that the Government could do to support these valuable community assets? First, will the Government make the listed places of worship scheme permanent, without a cap, for each place of worship beyond March 2026? It is vital that those churches are supported so they can continue to serve their communities.

Secondly, will the Government prioritise support for projects that are already under way and/or for which contracts were signed before the cap was introduced? I highlighted a number of churches in that position; the overall figure is estimated to be 260.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady’s second question for the Minister include All Saints Mudeford, which burned down two years ago? The rebuilding process cannot be started because of the extra burden of VAT, so the church is raising money for that.

[Marsha De Cordova]

If that church is on the list of 260, it would be, but I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman follows that up with me after the debate so we can look into it.

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a new capital funding scheme for listed places of all faiths and denominations? Finally, would my hon. Friend the Minister, when he is liaising with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, agree to meet me and representatives of some of the churches that are affected by the changes to the listed places of worship scheme, to listen to their experiences and find a solution? I think we can all agree that if we do not find a way forward, the impact will be great.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Good morning to everybody in the Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for the significant work that she does.

I will respond to some of the points that hon. Members raised and set out the Government’s position on this topic. Given the subject of the debate, it seems fitting to begin by reflecting on some religious terminology. I understand that among Christian communities it is common to remind one another that, biblically, “church” refers not only to a physical building but to a gathering of people assembled, united by their Christian faith. Nevertheless, for most the word “church” invites images of Christian places of worship, be they the Gothic cathedrals in the shire counties or the churches of all denominations in towns and cities across the country, which were built not just as places of worship but as anchors of the communities they serve. They serve not only the community’s spiritual needs, but its social needs, and many stand in support of the local school, the community hall and more. Many churches, including in my town of Oldham, are buildings of note whose status and heritage have stood for generations.

There are many modern parish churches on estates around the country. Town planners would often draw up the ideal community, with local schools, shops, pubs and, alongside them, places of worship, which were always seen as integral to a thriving community.

We also know that church buildings often welcome through their doors not just Christians, but those of all faiths and none, because they are a wider anchor of the community. That can equally be said of places of worship belonging to other faiths and belief communities, including mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples. The public service and care for their neighbour enacted by faith and belief groups are not just words; they are seen in actions that are often very practical and grounded in the place they live in and represent.

That brings us to the focus of this debate: the importance and impact of religious buildings in communities. There are an estimated 40,300 churches in the UK, according to the National Churches Trust, plus many places of worship belonging to other faiths and beliefs. The invaluable contribution of religious buildings to the built landscape of our nation cannot be overstated. My noble Friend Lord Khan, the Minister for Faith, has made more than 120 visits since last July, including to places of worship, and seen at first hand how they serve their communities.

Only last week, the Minister for Faith spoke at the Shah Jahan mosque in Woking, marking VE Day and the sacrifice of Muslim soldiers in defence of our country. The mosque, built in 1889, is the oldest purpose-built mosque in the country. The Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha gurdwara in Birmingham, which the Minister for Faith visited in December, was built in the 1970s, following the arrival of Sikhs from India and East Africa. The Nishkam campus includes not only a place of worship, but a school, a health centre and a social enterprise that serves all members of the local community, regardless of faith.

We have heard numerous examples of how religious buildings are being used to build more compassionate and resilient communities. I can think of a number of churches, mosques and temples in my area that reach out and offer support to the homeless, provide food banks and do an amazing amount of charity work. We have heard about services based in those buildings for older people, younger people and marginalised groups, from food banks and community kitchens to vaccination centres and now modern family hubs. I will add the work that my Department funds through the near neighbours cohesion programme, which often operates out of places of worship, bringing together people from diverse background to collaborate on initiatives that improve their local community.

Sadly, because these buildings matter, they can become the focus of hate for those who seek to sow division in our communities. We saw that in the wake of the tragedies in Southport last summer, when the local mosque became the target of thugs participating in violent disorder. What those criminals did not anticipate was the response of local people, Muslims and many non-Muslims alike, to protect and rebuild that mosque. But protecting religious buildings from violence cannot be just the responsibility of local citizens. The Government are committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion at their chosen place of worship, and to ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.

That is particularly important at a time when attacks on synagogues and mosques in the UK, and worldwide, have risen. In 2025-26, up to £50.9 million is available to protect faith communities and their places of worship. That includes £18 million for the Jewish community protective security grant, £29.4 million for the protective security for mosques scheme and for security at Muslim faith schools and £3.5 million for the places of worship and associated faith community centres of all faiths.

We know that those measures, though vital, do not necessarily address the deep-seated issues that lead to the need for such protections in the first place. I am sure we all wish they were not needed at all. That is why my Department is leading the cross-Government effort to develop a longer-term, more strategic approach to community cohesion, working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders, including faith and belief groups, to rebuild, to renew and to address those deep-seated issues.

As part of that ambition, the Government recently announced a plan for neighbourhoods: £1.5 billion to invest in 75 areas over the next decade, highlighting the Government’s commitment to repairing fractured communities, bringing people back together and ensuring that people see a visible difference and improvement in their communities. Local neighbourhood boards will provide a space for community representations, which could include those from faith and belief communities, to help shape how the funding is delivered through their local neighbourhood. That could include discussions on the role of places of worship in serving their local communities.

Religious buildings help to make up not just the physical, but the social fabric of our nation. They are a record of our history, a resource for our present and an asset for the future. That is why this Government have continued to fund the listed places of worship scheme. It was due to the difficult fiscal circumstances that we inherited that the scheme’s budget was reduced to £23 million from April 2025. Despite that, the evidence of previous years suggests that that sum should meet the demand, with 94% applying to the scheme for less than £25,000 and more than 70% applying for less than £5,000.

It is worth noting that there is also a range of support for listed places of worship via DCMS and the Department’s arm’s length bodies. For instance, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has committed to investing around £100 million between 2023 and 2026 to support places of worship. In exceptional circumstances, listed places of worship may also be eligible for Historic England’s heritage at risk funding, and in February DCMS announced an additional £15 million for 2025-26 for this sector.

The Churches Conservation Trust also funds repairs to and maintenance of more than 350 churches in its portfolio. Moreover, town and parish councils are civil local authorities, and in that capacity may choose to support the upkeep of religious buildings, which support the development of other community assets.

In addition to the critical day-to-day work of providing spaces that help to meet the needs of local people, churches and religious buildings also often host events of national commemoration and celebration. Examples include the funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, His Majesty the King’s coronation and services of remembrance in every community across the country—moments when religious buildings become sites of history and stir the nation’s collective soul. That has also been movingly evident in the images of St Peter’s basilica in Rome over the last few days and weeks, with great crowds gathering to pay their respects to the late Pope Francis, and scenes of jubilant celebration to mark the election of Pope Leo XIV.

I thank the Members who secured this debate, the right hon. Member for Salisbury and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, and those who participated in it for providing the opportunity to demonstrate—

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is making a good speech responding to the debate, but I raised three points at the start: making the scheme permanent, prioritising support for those projects that are already under way and looking at a capital fund. Will he respond to those specific points?

[Jim McMahon]

I did my best to outline the range of different funding available to local churches and places of worship; this fund is just one of a number. On my hon. Friend’s particular point about the continuation of the fund, Members will appreciate that any matter of future funding is a matter for the spending review, and every Department across Government will make a submission to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I think Members across the Chamber will agree that this has been a good-spirited debate. It has not been party political, because churches and places of worship are present in all our constituencies. We have heard some good examples of the significant role and impact of our listed places, whether they are providing a breakfast club, a warm space or wonderful musical recitals—I feel I need to be invited to Derby cathedral at some point. The Government cannot afford not to act to ensure that these places are protected, so I hope that the Minister will take that message back.

I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for co-sponsoring this debate, showing how we can work across party on issues of common interest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made a wonderful speech on the importance of our church, Holy Trinity Clapham—a thread throughout the entire debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); I will take back his point about the speed with which we appoint our archbishop.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam)—let us hope that one day Leicester will be back in the premier league, not least for my own family interest—for Yeovil (Adam Dance), and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for their speeches. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for their interventions.

Finally, I thank the many church leaders for their leadership, for their selfless service and for the incredible work they are doing in our communities and constituencies up and down the country. I thank each and every Member who spoke, and all those who continue to raise this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I would be grateful if the hon. Member could write to me about that specific case. I will follow up with him.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I recently visited the Glass Door night shelter in my constituency to hear more about the work it is doing to alleviate homelessness. One of the things it told me was that many of the women who visit the shelter are fleeing domestic abuse. We all know the challenges if somebody is homeless: it is almost impossible to get a job, let alone to find somewhere safe and decent to live. The Minister has highlighted the investment. Can she set out a little more about the money being invested in services not only to support but to protect women fleeing domestic abuse?

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing an interdepartmental taskforce on homelessness and rough sleeping. A key part of our work is ensuring that we support victims of domestic abuse and violence. As I stated, we have already allocated funding to local authorities, and we will continue to work across Government to tackle the root causes of homelessness as well as violence against women.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will recognise—I know he does—that those types of developments are the result of the expansion of permitted development rights that was taken forward after 2013. There are issues with the quality of some of the works that have come through that stream. On the specific issue he raises, perhaps it might be a good idea if we sat down together. I will happily discuss with him how we can protect leaseholders from those types of variable service charge increases.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Battersea is home to a large number of leaseholders, many of whom have had to face astronomically high service charges from what we all know are unscrupulous management agents. I am very pleased that this Government will protect leaseholders, given that the last Government failed to do so, but is the Minister willing to meet me and some of my leaseholders so that he can share Labour’s plans to protect them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am more than happy to sit down with her, or to join a call or meeting with leaseholders in her constituency, in order to discuss the Government’s plans to end the system in this Parliament. We fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders across the country for us to act with speed. As the ministerial statement sets out, we also have got to balance that with the need to get these reforms right. The serious and specific flaws that were left to us by the previous Government in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 are a warning about what happens when reform in this area is not done properly.

Representation of the People

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their excellent contributions, and to the shadow Minister for his contribution. This is the first of what I hope will be a number of debates on this important agenda. I will not be able to give an exhaustive response to all the contributions made today, but I look forward to meeting hon. Members to follow up on specific points, and I thank them for their work in the previous Parliament on this agenda.

I will speak to some of the points that have been made. The shadow Minister raised issues around the wider policy and what we will do. He will be aware that today’s measure is a really important part of the work we are doing. I am proud to say that my party is taking action to ensure that veterans can exercise their democratic rights, and I am grateful to colleagues for their work on that. On the points around evaluations of the 2024 general election, as I said, we will look carefully at the proposals in the previous Electoral Commission report and the one published today, and establish what action needs to be taken. We are undertaking a strategic review of electoral registration, conduct and funding processes, looking at the biggest challenges and pain points in the system, and working in partnership with the elections sector to understand how to address the challenges in a practical and pragmatic manner. I recently met the head of the Electoral Commission.

The shadow Minister mentioned raising awareness. The Electoral Commission has an important, positive role in raising awareness among not only veterans but other electors, such as young people, and in supporting the needs of other groups who have traditionally been excluded. We look forward to working with it closely on this very important agenda.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an excellent point about broadening this out—veterans are a great first step—to other groups, in particular those who are disabled, or blind and partially sighted. One of the crucial challenges they face is being able to vote independently and in secret, as well as that of having access to the right ID. Will she take that point away and ensure that in further conversations, she focuses on enabling those living with sight loss to vote independently and in secret?

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution; she is a powerful advocate on this agenda. I am incredibly proud of the work she has done to raise awareness, and I look forward to working with her and others to make sure that voters are not excluded, in particular voters with a visual impairment or other disabilities.

We will look carefully at the commission’s findings and recommendations in both the reports that have been published and provide a formal response to both.

On the wider points about the evaluation of the introduction of voter ID at UK elections, Members will be aware that the Elections Act 2022 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an evaluation of the impact of the implementation of the voter ID policy on the next local elections and the next two UK parliamentary elections. We have contracted IFF Research, an independent research organisation, to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the 2024 general election. In light of the points that have been made about the ID schemes used in the elections, it is critical that we look at the evidence base and identify what further action needs to be taken. I look forward to working with colleagues as that evidence comes through.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) made a point about Northern Ireland. It is critical that we respect the way elections are run in Northern Ireland, and that we recognise the differences between the procedures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. There has been a requirement, as he highlighted, to show voter ID in Northern Ireland since 2002. There are also differences in the lists of accepted documents. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to bring forward legislation to add the veteran card to the list of ID documents that may be used in Northern Ireland’s polling stations in advance of its next elections, scheduled to be held in 2027.

A number of points were made about the impact of voter ID on 16 and 17-year-olds. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for her work as a Front-Bench spokesperson on these important issues. As part of our commitment to expand the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, we will need to consider whether the identification requirements may be more difficult for younger voters to meet. Some of those concerns have been highlighted today. It is crucial that there are no barriers to the enfranchisement we want to see. We look forward to understanding better what is different about the needs of that younger demographic, in terms of patterns of ownership of identity documents. We are considering that as part of our work towards expanding the franchise. Once again, I look forward to hearing from colleagues about their experiences as they discuss this important change with young people in their constituencies. I will be doing the same in mine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and others raised accessibility, in particular the support needed for disabled voters. We are committed to supporting returning officers to ensure that disabled people can participate in elections. We continue to work closely with organisations that represent disabled people and the elections sector to support them to take part in the democratic process. Importantly, the blue badge and the disabled person’s bus pass are already in place, but we will of course consider whether more can be done to support those electors, because it cannot be right that they are excluded in any way.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Forgive me for expanding on this issue slightly, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should consider other methods of voting? To be accessible, voting could be done digitally.

[Rushanara Ali]

That is a very important point. I do not want to pre-empt what we will do in the future, but I look forward greatly to my hon. Friend’s providing input as we conduct the review, and I encourage other colleagues to do the same. This is a very important agenda, and it is a big opportunity for parliamentarians and others to contribute to the proposals that we will consider and present.

A number of points were made about additional documents, and we will look at those during our review. I have mentioned young people in particular.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, the newly elected Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, raised a number of important points. I will not go through them all, but I look forward to meeting her and others to pursue the agenda further. She referred to the current strategy and policy statement; it does not reflect the Government’s priorities, so we will not be leaving it in place.

My hon. Friend also spoke about changes ahead of May 2025. It is important for any proposals for electoral changes to be properly considered and for any change in the list of accepted ID to be based on sound data. It is right that electors have certainty and clarity about what is accepted, and that electoral administrators are fully able to take account of any changes. Accordingly, we will not introduce further changes for May 2025. We are taking our time to get this right, and we will ensure that any further changes are clear and fully considered. At this point, we are not committed to a specific timeframe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) mentioned the role and contribution of British Gurkhas. We are all incredibly grateful for their contribution, and that is partly why this agenda is so important.

Let me say something about the wider work that the Government are doing to support veterans. The Minister for Veterans and People is working with veterans groups and armed forces charities, as well as public bodies, to promote the accessibility and availability of the support for them. That support ranges from housing and skills to mental health provision, as well as help for those who want to stand for public office. I am delighted to see a number of colleagues on both sides of the House who have come to our Parliament from the armed services; they have made some powerful contributions, including their speeches in this debate.

Our work on voter ID for veterans is very much part of this agenda. The Veterans Minister will be working closely with me to ensure that we widen both accessibility and awareness through those networks. This statutory instrument is part of the Labour Government’s work to support veterans, not only in terms of democratic participation but in respect of the wider support that they need, in recognition of the contribution that they have made to our country and our security through their service in the armed forces. There is also the wider commitment that the Government have made in putting the armed forces covenant fully into law.

We are all justifiably proud of our long history of democracy, but we should never take it for granted. The addition of the veteran card to the list of documents accepted as identification at the polling station will help this important community to engage in the electoral process and exercise their democratic rights. I hope Members will agree that the regulations provide for some important changes to our electoral rules, strengthening, widening and securing our democracy into the future, and I hope they will join me in supporting the veteran community. I am grateful for their contributions to the debate, and I am incredibly proud of the fact that it is this Government who have introduced these changes. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

Building Safety

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has had a long-standing interest in this issue and in leasehold on a broader basis. He is absolutely right to highlight the tireless work of so many people across the country, including the groups and organisations that came together, both on the leasehold side, which he is involved in, and on the cladding side. They did not want to have to come together and spend so much time to make progress and end our cladding scandal, but they work incredibly hard to ensure that we make progress. I am grateful for all their constructive work with us. It is absolutely the case that more needs to be done, but as the statement outlined, week by week and month by month, we are making progress. I hope we can do more in the months ahead.

Finally, my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on leasehold and highlights his thoughts very clearly. No decisions have been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been clear about his own personal views. I know my hon. Friend’s views will have been heard as a part of the discussion.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

One of my priorities in Battersea is to ensure that everyone has a safe, decent and affordable home. However, seven years on from the devastation of the Grenfell fire, many of my constituents are still living in unsafe buildings. Government support has so far been available for buildings 11 metres or over. It beggars belief that that is the case. Can the Minister be clear about what the Government are doing to ensure that prioritisation for funding is allocated according to risk, so that all households are protected, including the many in my constituency that are below 11 metres?

[Lee Rowley]

With the greatest respect, I do not think it does beggar belief that a line has been drawn at 11 metres. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position; I had hoped that she would listen to my answer in the first instance before making comments on it.

This is a relatively recognised and relatively long-standing position. Following the commitment given by my predecessors back in 2022, when we have received concerns about buildings under 11 metres we have taken action. We have looked at those buildings and have commissioned reports when that has been necessary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it has subsequently been confirmed that they do not require remediation. If any Members have outstanding concerns about buildings less than 11 metres high, I encourage them to get in touch and we will happily look at them in more detail, because if the trajectory that we have seen in the cases that have been raised with us so far already is followed, it is highly likely that life-critical safety concerns will not be visible once we have done so.

Leasehold Reform and New Homes

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leasehold reform and new homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Yesterday, we had an excellent Report stage debate on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. I was really encouraged to hear from the Minister that the Government are looking at going further on two of the big things that we need to improve in the Bill: ending forfeiture and ending the private estates, or so-called fleecehold estates, model. I once again thank all the different bodies that have worked so hard to get us to this point, the Minister, who managed to get the time for this legislation, the ministerial team that came before him, and all the different bodies that provided useful evidence in Committee, including the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the National Leasehold Campaign, Harry Scoffin and Free Leaseholders, HorNet, the HomeOwners Alliance, and many more.

I do not want to just repeat all the points we made yesterday, but I will briefly touch on some, because my speech flows on from them. Yesterday, I quoted my constituent Karen, who said that dealing with FirstPort, her fleecehold company, is

“like having a part time job”,

and who is being charged for, among other things, terrorism insurance for a fence. I quoted my constituent James, who says that he spent

“about 50 days’ work over the first couple of years”

dealing with his unadopted estate and trying to put right some of the mistakes made by developers.

I quoted the residents of Hursley Park, who managed to get control over their residents management company because of a legal mistake by the developer, but years on are still fighting to avoid being lumbered with the cost of botched work by Mulberry Homes. Disappointingly, that developer will not even meet them to discuss it. I also quoted one of the residents of the Farndon Fields estate, who has had a long battle with a faceless fleecehold company called Chamonix that billed people for large sums, did almost no work, repeatedly billed people several times for things they had already paid, and generally behaved appallingly.

I want to bring out how some of those stories show the different ways that we can intervene to get rid of this awful, scamming industry, which sees councils and developers effectively colluding to stiff residents with big bills and poor services. The first step is to look at how homes are sold. Numerous Members in yesterday’s debate talked about constituents who had not realised what they would be liable for. That seems to be particularly the case where people are bribed by the developers to use their lawyers—oddly enough, developers’ lawyers do not always point out the big bills that people will face. That is the first thing we should look at.

The second step is to look at the whole planning process and the fact that permission is often given before there is clarity on adoption. That is a bizarre way of going about things. The residents of Devana Way in my constituency, who I did not mention yesterday, found that out the hard way. They bought beautiful, expensive homes on a nice tree-lined street, but during the process of haggling with the county council over adoption and who was going to look after the trees, the developer concluded that it would be cheaper to simply rip out all the trees—and that is what it did one morning, to the horror of residents. I do not blame councils for wanting funds to look after trees; in fact, I think we should make it a priority in local government finance to make sure that all residential streets come with trees. However, there needs to be clarity about the rules of adoption up front, not after the fact.

Likewise, we need to stop developers wriggling out of planning conditions more generally through variations, as one developer is trying to do at the top of Kettering Road in Market Harborough—it is trying to get rid of a bus service it promised when it was trying to get planning permission. One of the most common abuses is that developers promise that there will be a new GP surgery as part of a new estate, but in fact have no plan, no intention or no way to deliver it. I am afraid I know several colleagues who have had that happen in their constituencies.

The Minister has promised to make progress on forfeiture, one of the most important things we have to deal with. That is important across leasehold and on fleecehold estates, too, because the disproportionate threat that someone might lose their home over a tiny unpaid sum enables the fleecehold cowboys to terrorise people into paying up. People are being conned about what they are buying. As we said yesterday, Margaret Thatcher said that there was no prouder word in our language than “freeholder”. Many of those people believe they are freeholders, but do not realise the threat hanging over them. My constituent Karen said that purchasers on her estate were not told that they would have to pay an annual rent charge:

“the word ‘rent’ wasn’t used by anyone we spoke to. It was referred to as a ‘maintenance charge’—if it was referred to at all. I didn’t fully understand what ‘rent charges’ meant until about four years after we bought.”

That is another way that people are being mugged by the fleecehold estates model.

We need to do two things. First, we need to help the 3 million to 4 million people who are stuck on fleecehold estates. We could do that through something such as a right to manage, or better still we could give them the opportunity to have their estates adopted by the council, which is what many of them want.

Secondly, we need to end this model for the future, which again could be done in numerous ways. We could do what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) suggested and prevent companies from charging for things that are usually provided by councils. Alternatively, we could use guidance to ban the model except in extreme and exceptional circumstances. I do not mind how we go about it, but we have to end the model.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech—I do not always say that to Government Members—but does he agree that this is about fairness? The current leasehold system is not fair, and it is certainly not just. In 2022, my Battersea constituency was area with the 18th highest number of leasehold transactions. The hon. Gentleman is part of the governing party, and the Government have really missed an opportunity to do away with this outdated system and bring about fairness and justice for leaseholders. Thousands of my constituents, like his, have been calling for that.

[Neil O'Brien]

I got a sense from the Minister yesterday that the legislation will go further. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is already a great achievement. It is the first time since 2002, I think, that we have legislated on this matter. According to the Opposition, there were some big missed opportunities when we passed that legislation, which has never been commenced—I think everyone across the House agrees with that. The Bill is already good, but I think I detected from the Minister that there are ways we can make it better, and I hope we will collectively be able to do that. To be clear, the people who have been stuffed by the fleecehold estates model do not want a marginal change; they want to end this fundamentally rip-off model.

I asked for this debate to be about new homes as well as leasehold, because sadly fleecehold is just one of the issues affecting buyers of new homes. I have been conducting a survey across Harborough, Oadby and Wigston of buyers of new homes, and I am struck by how widespread the problems are. In two different streets in different places in my constituency, residents have faced sewage in their street and even flowing up into their sinks, dishwashers and showers. There have been occasions when they have been unable to wash because of that.

In the first location, which I visited the other day, the problems have been going on for about four years. The developer plugged the sewage system from a new estate into a sewer for an older estate, causing the older sewage system to overflow with rain water. After four years of denials from the developer, the residents have proved, with the help of Severn Trent, where the problem is coming from. The developer has, in fairness, finally fessed up to causing the problem, and the new person in charge locally seems serious about fixing the problem, so I will not name them for now.

In the second case, Meadow Hill in Wigston, the problem has been going on for about six years. The sewage system in the new estate is simply inadequate. The homes were originally built by Westleigh Homes and were taken over by Countryside Partnerships after completion, which itself has been taken over by Vistry Group. Vistry continues to deny the problem and will not take responsibility, even though I have seen for myself bits of toilet paper in the road that have come spurting up from overflowing sewers. Vistry does not fix the problem. It occasionally sends people to clean up, but mainly it is left to residents to clean up the faeces. I would like to invite Greg Fitzgerald, the chief executive officer of Vistry, to come to see the filth for himself, and I will perhaps ask him how much he would like to have it in his street and coming up into his home. Stephen Teagle, who runs Countryside Partnerships, would also be very welcome to join us to see that disgusting case.

Those are extreme cases, but I am struck by how often British developers sell homes with serious problems, either with the property or with the new estate. For example, a constituent in Wigston has faced a bill of about £10,000 to fix problems caused by his developer, which left his garden at a very steep angle. After two years of fighting, the developer, David Wilson Homes, has agreed to pay about 20% of the cost—a tiny fraction.

A constituent who moved into a new development in Kibworth faced numerous rat infestations due to the pipes in her new home not being fitted correctly. She also experienced mould in the bathroom because the bath was also not fitted correctly.

A constituent who moved into Wellington Place in Market Harborough had more than 200 snags on their property. The toilets did not drain properly, and the downstairs toilet did not work at all for many months, which meant that their disabled daughter had to go upstairs to use the loo. The entire garden needed to be excavated to be fixed and, alarmingly, the fire alarms did not work properly. My constituent found it difficult to get hold of the developer, Davidsons, to get any of those issues addressed, because it had sacked the people responsible for aftercare on the estate.

There are reasons such things happen. On the surface level, some developers are simply more serious about ensuring quality than others. It is not impossible to get it right in the current system, and many do. The Government’s creation of the new homes ombudsman service is a big and very welcome move towards tackling the problems directly. However, some of the problems also reflect wider problems with this country’s model of development: the so-called fast-turn model. In Britain, so much of the profitability of the industry turns on its ability to play our dysfunctional planning system rather than its ability to build in quality.

I was going to make this point today anyway, but as it happens the Competition and Markets Authority’s monumental investigation of the housing market, which was published earlier this week, gives us a huge amount of further evidence that the current model is dysfunctional. Naturally, the sharing of information and cartel-like behaviour between firms was the headline of the report, but many of the other findings are just as explosive. The CMA notes that

“housebuilders don’t have strong incentives to compete on quality and consumers have unclear routes of redress.”

It also notes:

“We see evidence of a statistically significant increase over time in the proportion of homeowners reporting higher numbers of snags, with 35% of respondents…in 2021-22 reporting 16 or more different problems.”

The report brings out what some of those “snags” look like in the real world. One homeowner notes:

“After moving in, my attic hatch fell completely out of the ceiling of its own, because the joiner had only used three screws to fix it instead of sixteen”.

Another says:

“The stairs collapsed while walking up [them] with my son.”

The CMA notes the growing volume of complaints about hidden charges. Among the CMA’s recommendations is

“requiring councils to adopt amenities on all new housing estates.”

That is a very good idea, which takes us back to the issue of leasehold, and I hope that the Government adopt it.

One of the great strengths of the CMA report is the way that it draws the links between the broken planning system and the industry that results from it. Following the conclusions of the Letwin review, the report concludes:

“The evidence shows that private developers produce houses at a rate at which they can be sold without needing to reduce their prices”.

In a paper that I wrote for the think-tank Onward six years ago, I tried to set out some of these dysfunctions. The complexity of the planning system increases market concentration directly and also indirectly, by amplifying the land price cycle, which leads to fewer and fewer developers in each economic cycle, as the small players go bust and are forced out of the market. I am encouraged that the Government are taking great strides towards a better model of development in this country by fixing those deeper, underlying problems.

The vision for more purposive urban regeneration set out in the long-term plan for housing is a good one. The recently passed Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 creates stronger compulsory purchase order powers and requires the dark market in land options to be replaced by a register of land options. I look forward to us cracking on with the secondary legislation needed to bring that about. I also look forward to the Government taking further steps towards creating a more purposive, less passive planning system, in which deliberate, plan-led development becomes a greater share of development and small, speculative development, without the necessary infrastructure, becomes a smaller part of development. The Government are sold on that vision and are making big strides towards it. The current ministerial team—the Secretary of State and our brilliant Housing Minister, who is here today—have that vision and experience these issues in their own constituencies.

I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. I hope that, when the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill arrives in the House of Lords, the Government will proactively take steps to improve it to address these issues. If I read the Minister’s body language right, he clearly understands those issues and wants to act on them. I hope that we can agree to act as quickly as possible, because the issues that I have described in my constituency are horrendous. People have worked hard, saved up a lot, done all the right things, and bought a new home, but they are getting mugged by an industry that, although also having some good players, has some real cowboys. As I said yesterday, the people in my constituency want a new sheriff—in the form of our current Housing Minister—to ride into town on his white horse, blow some of those bad guys away, put right what is being done wrongly and address the glaring injustices that my constituents are experiencing.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is completely right. I will be looking at the responses to the consultation, and I am sure that some of London’s finest legal firms and most eloquent solicitors will be putting in some very thoughtful contributions, but the question will be: who is paying for them and how much are they being paid? To my mind, people can buy silver-tongued eloquence, but what is far more important is actually being on the right side of justice.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

I believe that most of the people in the House are on the right side of justice, especially the hon. Lady.

[Marsha De Cordova]

On ground rents, shared owners who have staircased their way up to 100% and become leaseholders obviously have a long lease of 999 years, but face the issue of having their ground rents doubled every, say, 20 years. Clearly, that is an unfairness in the system, so will the Secretary of State’s consultation address that point?

[Michael Gove]

I believe it will. I must now make progress because I know a number of people want to contribute, so I will try to run through the other arguments about why we are taking the approach that we are.

I mentioned service charges, and one other example, to which the Father of the House has of course persistently drawn our attention, of where those who have been managing properties on behalf of the ultimate owners have abused their position is that of insurance commissions. We will be taking steps in the Bill to make sure that insurance charges are transparent and that fair handling fees are brought in. The fact that I can list all these examples just shows hon. Members the way in which freeholders have operated. Many who have got hold of such freeholds have been thinking, “Right, okay, we can jack up the ground rent, great! We can have service charges, keep them opaque and add something. Tell you what—insurance; let’s try to get more out of that.” It is a persistent pattern of behaviour that does require reform.

Another pattern of behaviour is the way that lease extensions and the whole question of enfranchisement have been going. If someone’s lease goes below 80 years and they want to enfranchise themselves, they have to pay what is called marriage value. That is the principle that, by bringing together the ownership of the freehold and the leasehold in one by enfranchising themselves—bringing those two together in a marriage—people are enriching themselves. Again, however, it has been used by freeholders to bilk leaseholders overall, which is why the approach we are taking will in effect eliminate marriage value. It is also why, when we talk about lease extension, instead of people having to extend and extend again generation after generation, we are saying that leases can be extended to 990 years. In effect, as I say, this will make sure that one of the approaches that freeholders have taken to extracting more cash from leaseholders will end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). He is absolutely right about management companies needing more transparency and more accountability.

Today’s Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is long overdue for my Battersea constituents. Many are trapped in the exploitative leasehold system, which denies them control, safety, security and a future in their home. Unfortunately, the Bill falls short of what the Secretary of State committed to when he said that the Government

“will maintain our commitment to abolish the…system of leasehold. We absolutely will.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]

This is yet another broken promise by the Tories.

We all know that everyone deserves to live in a safe, decent and affordable home, and that means abolishing the unfair and outdated leasehold system. In London alone, leasehold accounts for more than 30% of homes. Some 74% of homes sold in Battersea in 2022 were leasehold transactions, making Battersea the 18th highest constituency in the country for leasehold. So this Bill really matters to the people of my constituency.

I have been in this House for only six and a half years, and we have debated leasehold reform continuously. Indeed, we have passed legislation, by way of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which followed the awful, awful tragedy at Grenfell Tower. However, we know that even with all that legislation and despite all these debates, the system is still flawed and not all leaseholders are protected. In England and Wales, our approach has not been in keeping with that of the rest of the world, because many countries have chosen to do away with this feudal system or have reformed it; we are still in this state of stalemate. The Law Commission’s proposals back in 2020 had cross-party support. Everybody was in favour of them all, so it is disappointing that the Bill does not include all of its proposals and recommendations. That is sad because the Government have missed an opportunity to make some positive change that would protect our leaseholders. The Government’s inaction and delay in tackling the extortionate costs associated with being a leaseholder have had an impact, not least on people’s finances, as well as on their mental health and wellbeing. Many of my constituents regularly tell me about the range of problems they face: surging ground rents; high service charges; a lack of transparency over charges; poor customer service; excessive administration charges; charges for applications to extend lease agreements or enfranchise; and a lack of knowledge and information about their rights and obligations. The leaseholders in Battersea do not receive value for money on service charges, which can be increased at the last minute; they can go up drastically, with little warning. In one case, someone had their service charge increased by 30%, without any breakdown of costs or transparency as to why that had happened. At that time, the management company was—I am not sure of the best way to describe this—not forthcoming. In addition, it was abrasive, belittling and rude in its responses to us. So it is important that the role of these management companies and the way they are handled is addressed.

I am pleased that the Government are introducing long overdue measures to improve home ownership for many leaseholders. The Bill will make it cheaper and easier to extend a lease or buy the freehold; and it will increase the standard lease extension term from 90 years to 990 years, with the ground rent reduced to a peppercorn—obviously, upon payment of a premium. That is good and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said today that the Government will be consulting on grounds rents. Sadly, he did not address my point about shared ownership and those who staircase to 100% and then become leaseholders, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether the consultation will seek to address that issue as well. We need more transparency on things such as service charges, and it is right that the Bill will provide that. It will also provide for a right to request information about those charges.

However, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and many others, despite multiple assurances from Ministers, the Government have U-turned on their commitment to end the leasehold system. After all that they had been promised, my constituents would have expected the Government to go further and end this outdated system. The Bill does not even contain provisions to ban the creation of new leasehold houses, as was promised in the King’s Speech. I understand that that will be brought forward in Committee, but why on earth was it not in the Bill today? There is never going to be enough time to really go into detail about the challenges with the Bill, but it is important to note that housing is a human right. Everybody should be able to live in a safe, decent, warm and affordable home. Homeowners should be able to have security and have the power of their own home, regardless of the type of tenure. If you buy your home, you expect it to be yours; you do not expect there to be a freeholder who owns this aspect of it. The Government could take some lessons from Labour, as we will protect leaseholders through making commonhold the default tenure for all new properties and by overhauling the system so that existing leaseholders can collectively purchase more easily and move to commonhold if that is their wish. We are also committed to supporting house building, in order to deal with the housing crisis that the Tories have created and not addressed. That is why we need this leadership on housing; we do not need any more broken promises and failed policies from this Government, which have really left this country in a mess.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. We have no plans at present to amend enterprise zones, but I am keen to ensure that their constituents continue to reap the rewards of levelling up, including the £100 million of investment for Sizewell C and freeport east, which will generate thousands of jobs across his region in new low-carbon technology.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

T8. Caius House is a small youth charity in Battersea that leases a space in a multi-use high-rise building that includes residential dwellings. Despite its having state-of-the-art fire alarm systems, the charity faces huge waking watch costs. As the Building Safety Act 2022 does not protect registered charities, such as Caius House, will the Secretary of State look into this case? Will he seek to bring forward legislation to protect charities from high costs due to fire safety remediation work?

Renters (Reform) Bill

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, we are. There is a case for both a separate organisation and for having the issue fall to the existing ombudsman—who, I have to say, has been doing a very effective job.

I must draw my remarks to a close shortly so that all colleagues who wish to contribute can, but the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention provides me an opportunity to suggest that the condition of housing in this country—particularly housing built in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s—is a profound cause for concern. Many of those homes are reaching the end of their natural lives. As a result of how they were built, we are seeing not just building safety issues but children in particular living in homes that are not decent.

The tragedy of Awaab Ishak’s death reminded us that damp, mould and other poor housing conditions can have a deleterious effect not just on life chances but on lives themselves. That is why the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, the actions of the housing ombudsman and the actions that my Department has taken have been focused on ensuring that registered providers and social landlords live up to their responsibilities.

What we seek to do in the Bill is ensure that the small minority of private sector landlords who also need to up their game do so. We are not targeting any one sector. We are not targeting registered providers of social housing while leaving the private rented sector off the hook; nor are we directing particular attention to the private rented sector and letting registered social landlords off the hook. What we are doing is ensuring that citizens, who deserve a warm, decent, safe home, get one. That is what the establishment of the decent homes standard through this legislation will do.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The Bill would have been a good opportunity to bring forward provisions ensuring that homes are kept at a decent standard. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will bring forward measures before the next election that will address decent home standards for the private rented sector?

[Michael Gove]

At the very beginning of my introduction to the Bill, I stressed my gratitude to all those who had worked to shape the measure and make recommendations on how we could improve it. I am sure that in Committee we will hear representations from different Members and different organisations about how we can improve the Bill further. I am open-minded about that: my aim is to ensure that we get a new deal and a fair deal for both landlords and tenants.

I have listened to representations from the National Residential Landlords Association and others about making sure that the overwhelming majority of landlords, who do a great job, are able to deal with a small minority of tenants who behave badly. I have also listened to representations from individual tenants and those campaigning for them, who want us to move ahead with the abolition of section 21 and the establishment of the portal. The establishment of the portal and the existence of the ombudsman will, I believe, ensure that landlords are on firmer ground and no longer undercut by rogues, and that tenants get a better deal. It is because the Bill provides both landlords and tenants with stronger protections for the future that I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Today’s Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill is long overdue but, as many have already said, it unfortunately does not go far enough in many areas. Since the Government first promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions, 70,000 households have been evicted or threatened with homelessness. Everybody deserves to have a safe, decent and affordable home, but sadly, on the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people can buy their own home and over 1 million people are still stuck on social housing waiting lists.

My constituency is one of the youngest in the country and has a higher number of private and social renters than the national average. Average house prices are more than £675,000, which is around 15 times the average annual salary, making it much harder for many to get on to the housing ladder. All too often, that leaves them trapped in the private rented sector. The Renters Reform Coalition has rightly asserted that:

“The private rented sector in England is characterised by poor standards, a lack of affordability, discrimination and”—

most importantly—

“insecurity.”

I regularly receive correspondence from constituents complaining about the poor living standards and eye-watering rents that they are facing. That is why I asked the Secretary of State earlier why he would not bring forward provisions in the Bill to address the issues around decent standards. Renters have never been so exposed or so desperately in need of Government action to establish a fairer, more secure and more affordable private rented sector.

In London, private rents rose by over 6% in the year to this September, which is the highest for over a decade. The average rent in London is the equivalent of 40% of the average household income, compared with just 26% across England. The lack of protections for renters is playing a huge role in these trends. That is why reform of this sector is vital, but more needs to be done to protect renters and to ensure that they can live in a home that is safe, decent and affordable.

The Bill as it stands does nothing to address the cost of renting, which has skyrocketed. It contains no requirements for privately rented homes to meet the decent homes standard or provisions to increase councils’ investigative and enforcement powers. The Bill will eventually remove section 21 no-fault evictions, but it still has many issues. Renters will be protected from eviction only for the first six months of their tenancy, rather than the two years that many across the sector have been calling for. They will be entitled to receive only two months’ notice of an eviction rather than four months, which would give them more security, and landlords will be banned from reletting a property after evicting tenants on new grounds for only three months rather than for a year. While the Bill strengthens the law to ensure that landlords can increase rents only once a year, the mechanism for tenants to contest increases that are too high is not strong enough. We need to see a cap on tenancy rent increases at either the lowest end of inflation or wage growth.

I also want to touch on pets in private rented homes. This is an issue I have been working on with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in my constituency, and an issue that many of my constituents have been writing to me about. It is something that they care about. For many people, their pets bring them physical, mental and social health benefits as they are an integral part of many family units. It is vital that we ensure that clauses 7 and 8 are protected in the Bill, so that tenants have a legal right to request a pet in the property and the landlord must consider that request and not refuse it unnecessarily.

This Bill alone will not solve the housing crisis in the private rented sector, and the Government must look at wholesale reform of the sector. Labour has committed, once in government, to increasing the affordable housing supply, and the Mayor of London has already invested over £3 billion in building genuinely affordable homes. There is so much more that the Government can do. They could look at unfreezing the local housing allowance and restoring the link between the LHA and rising rents. It has been frozen for too many years and it is totally out of step with the cost of renting for many in this sector. Shelter has shown that low-income renters are being forced to find, on average, an additional £648 for a one-bedroom property, which is virtually impossible for many.

This Bill only scratches the surface on fixing the housing emergency created by the Conservatives. To protect our constituents, more needs to be done in every way to ensure that everybody has a safe, decent and affordable home to live in. This is the level of ambition that we need, but unfortunately it has been missing from this Government.

City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to have been granted the opportunity to have this debate. The centre of York is a special place. It is one that my community really values, with its amenities and services, its heritage and its friendships. Imagine someone being told that they are no longer allowed entrance. Why? Because they are a disabled person. Disabled not by the debilitative impairment that they have learned to live with, but “dis-abled” because the new security barriers prevent them using the blue badge access on which they depend. For some, alternatives may be found, but if their vehicle is their only means of transport and Motability alternatives do not work for them—or if it is where they store their medicines or equipment, such as a nebuliser, or it is their safe space—then being denied entry takes away their human rights and dignity.

We had these debates decades ago, resulting in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We understand the social model of disability, which is about the barriers—in this case, literally barriers—that prevent people from living their life without detriment. People are now locked out of their city not because they have an impairment, but because of intransigence within the local authority or authoritarians within it not recognising their basic human rights. As if life was not hard enough already, that one moment in the week when they go to the bank or post office, meet a friend for a coffee, or go to church or the cinema is now forbidden. Even the St Sampson’s centre, a specialist social space for older people, is cordoned off. It is discrimination.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening to her speech. Does she agree that a local authority seeking to ban disabled people from being able to access the centre of York amounts, pure and simple, to direct discrimination? It is a breach of their civil and human rights, and if the local authority were to rethink this, it would lift that ban and remove the barriers so that disabled people can freely access the city within which they live.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully, because this is an infringement of somebody’s rights and it is discrimination.

While the UN General Assembly and special rapporteur say that human rights and security are not in conflict, but complement each other, those with a poor knowledge of human rights have set them against each other. Tonight, I want to set the scene in York and say what the Government need to do to uphold human rights while strengthening security, as Labour would.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I start by conveying my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for calling the debate and for speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents, especially those who have been adversely affected by the installation of bollards, the removal of blue badge parking in York city centre and the many other issues she highlighted.

I thank the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord), for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is no longer in his place, for his contribution. I know he has similarly strong views to those articulated by the hon. Member for York Central. Both the hon. Members who represent the city of York are committed champions of the residents and businesses that call York home, and I know they share our ambition for that fine city, in the heart of the northern powerhouse, to continue to grow and flourish in the long term.

York attracts over 8 million tourists from home and abroad every year. We know the visitor economy is vital for the city, but it also causes the types of questions, challenges, trade-offs and considerations that the hon. Lady so eloquently espoused in her speech. An appropriate balance clearly needs to be struck, so in my response I want to provide clarity about the Government’s role and responsibility, while outlining some of the work around accessibility for disabled residents in York, and indeed in all our towns and cities.

First, I will talk about the UK shared prosperity funding, from which some money has been contributed to the work that has been discussed. I will then talk about accessibility and finally about blue badge parking.

As the hon. Lady will know, appreciate and accept, empowering places to identify and build on their own strengths and needs is a core tenet of the levelling-up agenda, which is why the UK shared prosperity fund is giving York £5 million. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that improving infrastructure costs money and takes time. The fund will help neighbourhoods and create more high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future.

As the hon. Lady outlined, clear concerns have been expressed about the changes that have made to some of the projects, including the perceived heavy handed use of bollards that restrict accessibility for people in wheelchairs. In rolling out the UK shared prosperity fund, we have been clear that we want to give local areas the maximum amount of local discretion. The essence of devolution is affording local areas the freedom to forge their own path, but with rights come responsibilities.

The hon. Lady has expounded the concerns that she and many others have about the course of action that has been outlined so far by City of York Council. The Government have always been unequivocal in saying that our high streets must be open and accessible to everyone. Local authorities have a duty, under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to exercise their functions in securing the

“expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic.”

Although councils are ultimately free to make their own decisions about the streets under their care, they need to take into account the relevant legislation. They are also responsible for ensuring that their actions are within the law. They are accountable to local people for their decisions, and indeed for their performance. There is no specific requirement for local authorities to use bollards; it is for each council to decide the most appropriate way to resolve these challenges.

Blue badge parking is a similar case. I know that the hon. Lady has been a champion of reversing the ban on blue badge parking since it was introduced in the city’s pedestrian zones as part of the measures introduced in 2021. I appreciate that the resident-led campaign has won the support of others, including Dame Judi Dench, as the hon. Lady outlined in her conclusion.

The blue badge scheme is a lifeline for many disabled people. It helps approximately 2.5 million people in England to remain independent, while preventing social isolation. The Department for Transport has published several documents and some non-statutory guidance for councils on how the scheme should operate. One such document, as the hon. Lady outlined, is “Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure”, which sets out the provision that should be made for parking spaces. It states:

“Creating and maintaining an accessible public realm is crucial for ensuring that disabled people are not excluded from playing a full role in society… Inclusive design requires that the needs of all disabled people are considered from the outset of any transport and pedestrian infrastructure”.

Personally, I would strongly encourage the city of York to think carefully about reconciling the understandable challenges with which it has to grapple, which we all recognise—the hon. Lady was careful to articulate and highlight them in her speech—with an approach that meets the rights of disabled people in the way she outlined. There is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public and not unduly imposing on the rights and freedoms of disabled residents, blue badge holders or the wider public who need to park in the city for essential reasons.

[Marsha De Cordova]

In my opinion, City of York Council is clearly breaching the law. It does not even seem to be complying with its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. Is there scope for the Government to intervene to instruct or encourage the council to reverse the ban?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for that question, which goes back to my point that ultimately central Government have to recognise, if we believe in devolution, that local councils must have the aegis and the space to make decisions. However, councils must make those decisions in accordance with the law, must have regard to regulation, and must think carefully about the impact and implications of their decisions in the way the hon. Member for York Central outlined. The fact that the subject had to be raised in this place tonight is indicative of the level of concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the challenges facing the city of York.

I have to respect the devolution settlement. I have to recognise that, ultimately, it is right that decisions are made locally. Local government does fantastic things across the country on a daily basis, and we should congratulate it and thank it for doing so. Nevertheless, I hope that the city of York is listening tonight, that it has heard the concerns and comments that have been articulated, and that it will consider very carefully how to approach the matter in future.

Question put and agreed to.