Strategy for Elections

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The focus of this strategy is on eligible voters in this country.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has been doing a lot of work on defending democracy. I am sure we will welcome the proposals, particularly on illicit finance and cracking down on unincorporated associations. I gently urge her to look closely at cryptocurrencies, which are clearly the currency of choice for criminals and rogue states. For example, one individual has routed £13 million into political organisations in this country through such a currency.

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about new challenges in relation to crypto, and I refer him to my previous answer on this point. We will look very closely at these issues to make sure that loopholes are closed, but I reassure him that the current powers cover donations through crypto and the changes we are making will also include crypto.

London’s National Economic Contribution

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. It is timely, both in terms of London’s potential and current contribution to growth and the fair funding review. He mentioned the £4 million per day that London local authorities spend on temporary accommodation. My own local authority, Westminster city council, spends £66 million over and above what it would be expected to spend on temporary accommodation. These costs are a function of the long-standing failure to build the genuinely affordable homes that we all know are so desperately needed. Does he agree that the additional temporary accommodation costs that London local authorities face should be recognised in funding settlements, and in the capital funding assessments of the affordable homes that are built? Does he also agree that the systemic problems that we have with homelessness in London need to be recognised in order for us to really fulfil our potential?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to keep interventions short.

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right. There is obviously no quick fix to this problem. It takes time to build new housing and ramp up the pipeline for it, but the current situation is not tenable. London boroughs compete against each other for increasingly expensive temporary accommodation with very low levels of quality. First and foremost, that hurts families and residents, affecting their life chances and preventing them from playing a full role in the economy. It is an urgent issue. I know the Government are working on a temporary accommodation plan—we have discussed that in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. We hope to see more detailed proposals of how to fix this problem in the short run while we build the housing that we need.

The target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament hugely depends on building in London. Of that 1.5 million, London’s target is to deliver 88,000 homes a year in this Parliament, so the spending review announcement is critical. The £39 billion in the affordable homes programme, including £11.7 billion for London, the 10-year rent deal and the new low-interest loans will make a real difference.

I was also pleased to see something that I have been calling for, which is equal access to the building safety fund for housing associations. Many housing associations have been putting more capital into remediation and not into building new homes. My strong belief is that the legacy of Grenfell must be that everyone, no matter where they live, can access a safe and healthy home. We should not have a false choice between building the homes that we need and building safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A combination of financing instruments was used to fund the Elizabeth line. That approach has huge potential for big infrastructure projects in London, including the proposal for a new St Mary’s hospital. It cannot be right that we are reliant on the Treasury capital budget for projects that we know will pay back over and above in the long term. There is a strong appetite to explore how different financing mechanisms could get these projects moving.

We should harness London as one of our greatest assets, not at the expense of other regions or of tackling regional inequality but for the benefit of the whole country. We should tackle regional inequality head-on, and I believe that London is part of the solution to that problem.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Just a gentle reminder please to speak through the Chair —so “you” is me, as Members will appreciate. At this juncture, I do not think that we need to put a time limit on speeches.

Cold and Damp Homes

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. The state of our private rental properties is an appalling open secret. One in four private renters live in fuel poverty; 1.6 million children are living in privately rented homes that are damp or mouldy. That is a shocking situation.

As we know, the UK has some of the oldest and coldest houses in Europe. More than half of tenants had issues with damp or mould last year. In my constituency of Bath, 31% had problems with hot water or heating, and 21% of privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard. These numbers are simply not acceptable. We need tougher inspections and much higher standards.

As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley has pointed out, serious health risks can arise from mouldy and damp conditions. It was not long ago that a toddler in Rochdale died from prolonged exposure to black mould, yet MPs still hear every winter from constituents who are dealing with terrible cases of damp and mould. A constituent in Bath recently wrote to me that their walls are black with mould. Now, after months of relentless coughing, they have been referred for asthma testing. Another constituent described fungi growing up from the floor. Damp and decay have already damaged their belongings, and now they fear that the place they call home is no longer fit to live in.

Such cases are prevalent across the country. One in four of the complaints that Citizens Advice receives is about disrepair, damp, mould or excessive cold. Is it any wonder that the NHS spends £1.5 billion every year treating respiratory illnesses? There have been small-scale trials in which heating vouchers were given to at-risk households as a preventive measure, helping to avoid illness and reduce pressure on health services. Why not roll it out nationally?

It is not just privately rented properties with unaccountable landlords that have these issues. Many of the cases that I hear about come from tenants in social housing. My largest social housing association, Curo, has made it clear that housing providers face soaring costs. Repairs, decarbonisation, regeneration and new home delivery must all be funded from increasingly stretched social rents. Social rents are set by the Government using a “consumer prices index plus 1%” formula, but successive Governments have capped, cut and changed this model. In 2003, for example, there was a 7% rent cap, despite the CPI reaching 11% that year; meanwhile, the average operating cost per household unit rose by 11%.

The Government have ambitious house building targets, but that mismatch leaves providers struggling to maintain existing homes, let alone build new ones. Because funding is overstretched, increasing numbers of social tenants are not getting the repairs and upgrades that their properties need to prevent damp and mould in the first place. I ask the Government to look at this closely. A fundamental review of the rent and capital subsidy regime will make sure that providers can provide homes that are well maintained and managed, while also meeting their requirements to improve, regenerate and build new social housing.

At the heart of this regeneration must be a programme of home insulation, which is something that Liberal Democrats have been asking about for a long time. Well-insulated homes stay warmer, so insulation is key to reducing energy bills. Much of the housing stock in Bath is Georgian and grade II-listed. These homes are in dire need of insulation, but listed buildings are more expensive to insulate because of the specific regulatory requirements. For many of my constituents, the cost of insulating their homes is just too high.

The Government have announced the warm homes local grant, aimed at improving the efficiency of low-income, low energy-performance homes. However, in the recent funding award, Bath and North East Somerset council will receive a fraction of the amount that it requested: just 26% of what was felt to be needed to carry out the work following consultation with the warm homes team. The existing consortium was awarded approximately £11 million over two years under the home upgrade grant phase 2. The programme has improved 80 homes in Bath, helping fuel-poor residents to save money on energy bills and benefit from a more comfortable and climate-friendly home, but it has been cut under the warm homes grant. The council is now receiving a reduced budget of just £4.5 million a year over three years.

Thousands of homes in Bath are eligible for the warm homes grant, but a very small fraction will receive it. The programme is likely to be oversubscribed; I understand that there is a waiting list from the previous scheme that will account for the first year of upgrades. The ability to carry out funded work on homes helps to alleviate fuel poverty, improve health and reduce carbon emissions. Reducing the budget will have knock-on effects on all those areas.

The other national awards reflect a similarly bleak picture. Once again, we had a winter in which our constituents suffered in cold and damp homes. I am not aware of any public acknowledgment from the Government that funding for home energy upgrades has been cut. I ask the Minister whether that represents a rowing back on the targets in the warm homes plan, or whether it is a reallocation of resources in the warm homes plan. The Liberal Democrats propose a 10-year insulation programme, starting with free insulation for the most vulnerable homes. If we want to reduce household energy bills, insulating homes is the place to start, so I hope that the Government will sincerely consider that.

The state of our rental housing, both private and social, is simply not good enough. It is one of the many failures of the previous Conservative Government, so the new Government must now step up and deal with the problem. The stories from my constituents in Bath are echoed across the country: damp walls, black mould and cold, unliveable homes. We know the solution—higher standards, proper funding for repairs and investment in insulation—but we continue to see piecemeal action and shrinking budgets. I urge the Government to act fast so all our constituents can live in safe, warm and secure housing.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We speak regularly with our counterparts in the devolved authorities, but I will make a special point of ensuring that the comments that have been made today are passed on to the relevant Ministers within those authorities and, as I said, with colleagues in the Scotland and Wales Offices.

Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on securing this important debate, and thank all those who have contributed to it. We all know the detrimental impact that non-decent housing has on the lives of our constituents, and that more must be done to drive up standards across housing tenures. I hope that this afternoon I have provided hon. Members with reassurance that the Government are working with determination to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of housing in this country.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Sobel to wind up.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered residential estate management companies.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for listing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is good to see so many MPs back straight after the Easter break, ready to get stuck into the gritty issue of residential estate management companies, whose poor business practices have affected so many of our constituents. In that spirit, I come here today to address the Minister and to call for urgency from the Government in dealing with some serious issues, and for more regulation and new legislation.

The issues raised repeatedly by constituents cause not just frustration, but in some cases serious distress. They cost significant amounts of money and sometimes lead to the loss of the entire value of a property investment at the point of resale. The situation for both leaseholders and freeholders has become so bad that such estates are now commonly referred to as “fleecehold” instead of leasehold. We note that the Government’s White Paper on leasehold reform, published last month, said that their legislation will make conversion to commonhold easier, but we feel that that will not go far enough. We look forward to seeing the legislation laid before the House. The previous Secretary of State—then the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—said that he was a “man in a hurry” to liberate leaseholders from unfair practices. He clearly was not in quite enough of a hurry, so I urge haste on the current Secretary of State.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform for the 4.8 million existing leasehold properties in England. In fact, it has been a campaign of ours since Lloyd George introduced the people’s Budget in 1909. We will keep going until we see some change. We want leasehold tenures abolished for all properties, including flats, and we want all existing leaseholds converted into either freeholds or, where appropriate, commonholds. We are disappointed that existing leaseholders are not covered by the Government’s proposals and we urge a rethink.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. To add to the point she is making, is she not shocked by the scale of what we are seeing across the country? Of the new homes built in 2021-22 by the 11 largest developers, 80% are subject to fleecehold.

[Caroline Voaden]

Yes, I absolutely agree. I will come on to that a little later.

To get back to the core issue of estate management companies, every type of resident—leaseholders and freeholders—is affected by rogue practices. Perversely, the situation is often more difficult for freeholders, who do not have the same statutory rights as leaseholders to take challenges to a first-tier tribunal. Where the landlord of an estate is a housing association, no one has any right to go to tribunal if that landlord fails to manage the property properly. That, too, needs to be looked at, but it falls outside the scope of today’s debate.

Whichever way we look at it, residents—whether housing association tenants, private tenants, owner-occupiers or retirees, living in a house or a flat—are being ignored, dismissed, intimidated and, frankly, fleeced by management companies that are not subject to any kind of regulation. We have all seen what happened in the water industry when private operators were allowed to focus solely on the profit line, ignoring their responsibilities to the environment while keeping shareholders happy. I believe we are looking at the next great scandal of our time: companies that may be owned by a shadowy collection of overseas investors eating up the smaller players in the UK market, building up their wealth and size so that they can ride roughshod over anyone who is tenacious enough to question their methods or ask for legitimate explanations of where their money has gone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should never lose an opportunity to trumpet our thanks to people like Trevor, Christine and all our volunteers up and down the country who make such a difference to people’s lives. They work alongside councils and other bodies to make life better and happier, and to make places more pleasant to live. I thank them unreservedly.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Funding cuts are adding to the clear pressures on local government around the country. One such example is developers who come armed with substantial funds and resources to contest their planning applications. Locally, Warwick District Council had an application just last week that the planning committee was essentially advised to allow because of a fear of not having the financial resources to contest it. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue. Should we be extremely concerned about it nationally?

[Simon Hoare]

Each planning authority has a quasi-judicial role to adjudge planning applications against national and local plans, and I have every confidence that planning committees up and down the country do that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to a 7.5% cash-terms increase for local government in this financial year as a cut, that is a very eccentric definition even for a Labour Member.

Teesworks Joint Venture

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly read some of the report. I just want to draw his attention to some other elements of it. Paragraph 12.7 states:

“The project is described as the largest regeneration project undertaken in the UK covering thousands of acres of land. The project is complex and the JV between the public and private sectors brings the inevitable cultural tensions between the desire to move at pace unencumbered by bureaucracy as opposed to the expectations of accountability and transparency”.

The report itself says that there was a debate to be weighed up on that, but it also states in paragraph 6.14, on the very point about the involvement of business and regeneration, that there was “no obvious viable commercial” proposition for regenerating part of the land, and that the joint venture

“was critical to being able to reach agreement with the Thai Banks”

to start it in the first place. It was necessary, it has been done, and it will be transformative for the people of Tees Valley.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about this being a complex project, but I am not quite sure exactly how complex it is. As I see it, Teesworks reported a turnover of £143 million, on which it made a £50 million profit—a 35% return. The only similar return I have seen recently was Baroness Mone’s, for her personal protective equipment. Given the scale of what I think is a scandal and many view as a scandal, the public expect the NAO to undertake an independent report. I admire the Minister’s conviction, but will he not support an independent NAO report to corroborate and validate his own?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman appears to be questioning whether the site is complex. These are not my words, but the words of the review, which many of his colleagues have used, often out of context in the past half an hour, to throw accusations around the place. He stood up once before, on 7 June 2023, to indicate that he thought the project was “a scam”. He was not choosing his words carefully then and he is not choosing his words carefully now. He should consider whether he wants to withdraw any of them.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is a bad Bill both in intent and in the methods that it adopts, which are harmful to Britain’s reputation around the world, to human rights, to the proper conduct of state actors and corporations, to citizens’ freedom of speech and to the actions of public and elected bodies. It has nothing to recommend it. It aims to prevent any boycott and to affect the right of public bodies, especially those that are elected, to consider factors beyond commercial procurement and investment decisions, such as ethical factors, which are often also commercially sensible factors. It neuters the exercise of choice by pension funds, employees and citizens. It constricts the freedom of expression of religious groups, trade unions and elected councillors. It proscribes freedom of speech in a draconian way, which sets an unfortunate precedent.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share concerns that clause 4 may contradict the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and go against the academic freedom that is enjoyed on university campuses?

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not think it is lost on any hon. Member that the Bill flatly contradicts the Government’s rhetoric on freedom of speech in a most draconian way.

The so-called exceptions require actions to be unlawful before action can be taken, but we know how difficult it is for foreign states to have convictions against them in that way. The Government produced no evidence, only assertion, to support the provisions.

The Bill fails every test. It weakens human rights protections for persecuted groups around the world, from the Rohingya to the Uyghurs. It particularly fails Israel and Palestine. It singles out Israel for special treatment. In the words of Daniel Levy, the respected commentator and former Israeli negotiator when talking to MPs earlier today, the Bill demands a lower, not a higher standard of Israel. It does not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Singling out Israel and conflating Israel and the OPT breaks the consensus that both main parties have maintained under successive Governments.

The subject of settlements often comes up. For example, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and I raised it in the urgent question earlier this week. Why, at a time when Foreign Office guidance advises against investment in settlements, when the Government have rightly spoken out about settlements being reintroduced in Gaza and rightly talked about sanctions against violent settlers, do the Government try to prevent, through the Bill, any action from being taken against settlements that are illegal under international law? A ban on settlement goods or investment in settlements is not the same in any respect as a boycott. The Government constantly dodge that issue, and they need to deal with it. The signals that they are sending out are entirely contradictory.

I hope that the Bill will be defeated. If it is not defeated and the reasoned amendment is not accepted tonight, I hope that we will return to the issue in the other place and that the Bill will not see the light of day before a general election. It certainly should not. It would be a shameful legacy, even for this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

You got there.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the West Midlands Combined Authority that the selfsame Andy Street presides over is the second worst performing CA in the UK, judging by its growth figures. In that circumstance, should the public of Warwickshire not have a say in any potential merger with that combined authority, as is proposed in the Secretary of State’s levelling-up Bill that is going through the House of Lords?

[Michael Gove]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but why does he think that Warwickshire cannot compete on the world stage as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority? Why does he have such little confidence in the people of Warwickshire? He has referred to the Mayor of the combined authority. Andy Street is the Mayor who has done most to deliver and, indeed, exceed housing targets as Mayor of the west midlands. Who has done the worst? Labour’s Sadiq Khan.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which absolutely concurs with my experience of the NAO. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of having written to the NAO to raise concerns, and all of us are treated with decency and impartiality by the NAO when it seeks to respond.

Unbelievably, the situation gets even more complicated. Questions were raised at that point about whether the NAO even had the ability to investigate. It turns out that it did, subject to the preparation of a suitably worded agreement between the Minister and the relevant body into which the examination is to be conducted. We called on the Secretary of State to provide such an agreement, which was met with radio silence. Into that void stepped the Prime Minister, who confirmed at Prime Minister’s questions on 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) that the Levelling Up Secretary had already announced an investigation into this matter, much to the surprise of our Front Benchers and Government Front Benchers, too. However, the Secretary of State has decided not to do so, instead preferring to hand-pick a panel of his own to investigate. Given that the Tees Valley Mayor has asked for an investigation and the NAO has the capacity and remit provided by statutory powers, we deserve to know why Ministers have decided to block that investigation, beyond what we have been told so far—that they consulted and decided against it.

Now that we have the terms of reference, let me say this to the Minister: it is utterly unacceptable to establish an inquiry that fails to ensure that all decisions that have led to the current situation are on the table, with no exclusion of factors that would impact a complete and fair assessment of whether the public interest has been protected. It must have expert support, administrative capacity and resources to ensure the same level of access that the NAO would have had. Any officials who worked at South Tees Development Corporation or public bodies on Teesside must be free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that exist.

The investigation must report back on what assessment the Department and wider Government made of the South Tees Development Corporation’s decision to transfer a 50% stake in the joint venture without any public tender process. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that from a sedentary position. Presumably, he has had a chance to read those terms of reference. It would have been nice if Members had been afforded the same courtesy. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering again from a sedentary position. That is precisely what we are attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Tees Valley Mayor is attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Chairs of the Select Committees in this House are attempting to do—establish the facts. And that is what the people on Teesside are attempting to—establish the facts. It says something about the extraordinary arrogance of this Government that they think that is an unacceptable request.

The investigation must confirm when Ministers were first made aware of the decision to increase the share to 90% and if an assessment of value for money for taxpayers was made in advance. Could the Minister confirm whether there was any discussion of the terms of reference with the relevant Select Committee Chairs—including the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Business and Trade Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—or are the Government determined to show the same contempt for Members that they are showing for people on Teesside?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was going through the events of the past week or so and the actions of Government, which smack of a cover-up. That is the fear and concern of the people of the Tees area and the wider public.

[Lisa Nandy]

I studiously avoided trying to prejudice any terms of the inquiry in advance of their announcement, but I was given seven minutes for a cursory glance at the terms of reference. If the Minister wants to tell people on Teesside that they deserve two minutes to understand the terms of reference, he is very welcome. That is arrogant and shows utter contempt for people in this country. Having looked at the terms of reference, I share my hon. Friend’s view. To many people in this country, it increasingly looks like an utter whitewash.

As far back as 2015, I raised concerns with this Government that democracy must not be an afterthought in the devolution model. Where the public have been let into the conversation, it is because of some of our brilliant Mayors across the country, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, who have chosen to go out proactively and involve the public in conversations about the things that matter deeply to them and to their lives. As has been so often said, it is our right to have that information and to be in charge of our own destiny; it should not be in the gift of whoever happens to be elected. When the respected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says that the measures that we have around transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not sufficiently robust, Ministers must take that seriously.

On the Opposition Benches, we believe that the people on Teesside are just as deserving of safeguards to ensure that the public money and assets spent and used on their behalf are used for their benefit and in their interests as the people in London, Greater Manchester or the west midlands. These are our communities; they are our assets; it is our money; and it is about time this Government started to show some respect for a country that belongs to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) was incorrect when he said that all the members involved in that decision were Labour councillors; they were not. That is categorically incorrect. I just want to put that on the record.

As someone who worked in procurement, I say, if it smells of fish, it is fish. This reeks of fish. The negotiations, the poor governance and the poor value for taxpayers’ money are a disgrace. Although this is a really important issue for the people of Teesside, the unfolding scandal has brought implications for the Prime Minister, for his freeport scheme and for this Government. What we are seeing is the first test of his freeport strategy and it is failing. It is thanks to the sharp investigative journalism of the Daily Mirror, which in January 2022 broke the story about the issues surrounding the project, that, ultimately, we are having this debate today.

The financial mountain that is being amassed by a few of the Mayor’s friends is colossal—friends who are also donors to the Conservative party. Fortunately, Private Eye, the Financial Times and my hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate have made absolutely clear the scale, the detail and just how widespread this emerging scandal is. It is a long story full of twists and turns, but at the centre of it all we have the Conservative Mayor, Ben Houchen, with the help of two counterparts, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney, and a few others.

It is a dark web of friends and family, property developers, PR companies and scrap metal merchants—the scrap metal story is perhaps the most egregious demonstration of how perverse this situation is. Half of the proceeds are now going to Messrs Musgrave and Corney and their companies. The day-to-day operation of this is led by Orion Kotrri, an Albanian man who, as we have heard, is married to Corney’s daughter. I could go into all the other relationships, but they have been well covered by my colleagues.

There are more questions than answers. Seven people have spoken to the Financial Times to raise concerns about accountability and governance. We all want to see investment across our regions, and Teesworks is the Prime Minister’s flagship freeport, but there seem to be parallels here with the personal protective equipment scandal, given the network of donors involved in the project. This is not a scheme—this is a scam.

Leasehold Reform

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The point is well made. I am sorry to go on for slightly longer than I ought, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been fighting on this subject for a long time and there are rare opportunities to get some of these things on the record.

The Minister has rightly talked about the commissions and loadings on insurance and the Competition and Markets Authority has looked at some of the insurance rates. The fact is that post Grenfell, the number of fires has gone down dramatically and it will go on reducing. It is not the high-rise properties that had most fires in any case, but the lower-level ones. We need to make sure that we watch all these issues and that the Government have people whose voices they listen to giving them advice on where action is needed.

We have to look at the Law Commission proposals. I hope that the Government will say in the King’s Speech say that they will get those through. When we were waiting for the King to come to Westminster Hall on the Tuesday before the coronation, I happened to be standing with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I said to the Prime Minister, “We need this legislation. It is going to be complicated in drafting but simple in politics.” I said in front of the Leader of the Opposition, “If you bring forward a Bill, it will not take a long time in this House. There will be detailed discussion but it won’t take a long time. No one will try to filibuster. It will have all-party support and we can get it through and change the lives of millions and millions of people.”

Only eight years ago, the Government thought the number of leasehold properties was about 2.5 million, but we now know it is about 6 million. We know that this is the fastest-growing element of the housing market.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is an authority on this subject. Is he saying that the reason there is no urgency on this is that the developers are making colossal profits out of it, and that there is a true correlation between their excessive profits and the expansion in leasehold?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

To a certain extent, I agree with that, but perhaps we can take it up another time or the hon. Gentleman could make his own speech later on if he so chooses.

I was going to make a point about retirement homes and end-of-life homes. We ought to have three times as many as we do. We need to attract people into decent homes, which are probably smaller and more thermally efficient, rather than them living in a cold, draughty place with many rooms that are not needed. I have an uncle who told me that his home in Taunton is so thermally efficient that he has not had to turn the heating on once in the four years that he has lived there.

If we can attract people into those homes with confidence, that will free up many more homes that will go to younger families, who will do up those homes with carbon-free heating, better insulation and all the kinds of things that we went through when we were young in the life cycle of housing, so we will all gain. That will not happen until we have housing providers who can be trusted. Again, I say to Mr McCarthy at Churchill, “I wish I could trust you. Why don’t you engage with us and show us that our doubts can be answered and that if your practices are unworthy you will have better ones?”

We had the same thing in the past with McCarthy and Stone—the McCarthys were obviously involved in that as well. Some of the managing agents there—this was when the Tchenguiz interests were involved—were involved in the scandal over call systems. They ran a cartel that saw leaseholders either unnecessarily paying out millions and millions of pounds to replace a system, or being overcharged. When the police came to investigate them, they declared themselves as having a cartel, which meant that they got let off completely free. That should not have happened. The first time that we lay complaints against these people, there should be action. The police need to be involved in these things as well.

I hope to have another opportunity in this Parliament to raise more of these issues. The key point is, why cannot we have action now on the scandals? Why cannot we frighten people?

On the overall costs of the defects in fire safety—not just cladding, but many others—why do the Government not get in the insurance companies, which covered the liabilities of the developers, the architects, the builders, the sub-contractors and everybody else, and say, “We want to have a few billion pounds from you as well, so that nobody is left in a home that is either unsafe or unsellable”?

We want people to have the confidence to live in their homes. I look forward to seeing what the Government do, and I am grateful to the Opposition for raising the motion, although I shall look down on them with less respect if they force it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I recall, back in the 1980s, the scandal of endowment mortgages. Over the years, I have also owned leasehold properties and had my fingers badly burned, so I understand many of the issues that so many people across the country must be facing.

The public rightly want reform. When people, particularly first-time buyers, look to buy a property, they are not made aware of what they are entering into, particularly with leasehold agreements. They think they are buying a home, so they think they will own the home. Of course, they then discover that they have actually bought high ground rents and extortionate service charges, often for services that are promised but not delivered, such as the maintenance of green space. Homeowners are paying full council tax, yet they are having to pay perhaps another £300 to maintain the verges and parks around these new estates. Some developers promise a council tax discount, despite paying additional amounts to companies such as Greenbelt, which I believe is associated with Persimmon Homes.

The scale of this is extraordinary. I understand there are about 5 million leasehold homes in England, including 8% of houses, and I know just how prohibitively expensive this can be. The absence of sinking funds, the lack of management reporting, the extortionate insurance payments, the charges for permission to make changes, the fact people cannot have bicycles on their property, the fact they cannot fit an electric vehicle charging point, and other ridiculous things—the list goes on.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In addition, the people who manage even large blocks need no qualifications, and there is no full protection for leaseholders’ money.

[Matt Western]

The Father of the House is absolutely right. In one of the properties in which I was a leaseholder, we set up as directors and took control of the property. We appointed our own management company, at significantly lower cost, to address some of the massive overcharges we faced.

In 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority estimated that the average service charge amounted to just over £1,100 a year, suggesting that service charges could total between £2.4 billion and £3.5 billion a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted the 2019 Select Committee report—I was privileged to sit on that Select Committee—which identified that, too often, leaseholders, particularly in new-build properties, have been treated by developers, freeholders and management agents not as homeowners or customers but as a source of steady profit. We concluded by urging the Government to ensure that commonhold became the primary ownership model for flats in England and Wales, as it is in many other countries. Of course, that has not been adopted.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend share the frustration that many of my constituents face? When they try to set up “right to manage” companies, and to move towards taking over their freehold, the process and the disputes about which buildings and outhouses constitute part of their property make it extraordinarily complex, and often expensive, to take control of management accounts.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is incredibly complex and extremely expensive to go through that process.

The last Labour Government’s Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced commonhold as a new tenure, which this Government should have pursued over the past 13 years. Progress was not made for two reasons: the conversion from leasehold to commonhold requires consent from everyone with an interest in the property, as my hon. Friend just said; and developers do not want to build new commonhold developments because there is no incentive and no financial upside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) highlighted. This Government have ignored these exploitative practices, and the ever-louder calls from the public to end them, for 13 years. They launched the Commonhold Council two years ago, so will the Minister update us on what has happened with that? It appears to be nothing.

The public are aware of the Conservative Government’s broken promises. Their 2019 manifesto promised to address this issue by implementing a

“ban on the sale of new leasehold homes”.

That has not happened. Even the Housing Secretary admitted that they should end this “absurd, feudal” system, but we are 13 years on from the last Labour Government and nothing has happened. This Government have let down the public. I appreciate that there is a high incidence of these cases in the north-west England, but there are also some in my constituency. Groups of residents across my local towns are keen to take control of the development of their blocks, but it is too expensive and complicated to do so, as many Members have been saying. In one block of 70 flats, the residents have managed to take that on, but the previous managing agent took £76,000 from the residents’ account and they have not been able to recover the money. The residents are keen to ensure that managing agents are better regulated in any proposed legislation.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, there is so much sharp practice out there. That is why Labour would implement the three Law Commission 2020 reports in full. They included measures designed to make it easier for leaseholders to convert to commonhold; to allow shared ownership leases to be included within commonhold; to give owners a greater say over how the costs of running their commonhold are met; and to ensure that they have sufficient funds for future repairs and emergency works.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend mentioned sharp practices, which I mentioned to those on the Labour Front Bench at this debate’s opening. I can give many examples from my constituency, but one of the latest involves leasehold companies, or their agents, sending out innocuous questionnaires to people about improvements they may have had done to their homes. People are filling those in and sending them back in good faith, and then getting a bill for the privilege.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and I have examples of that in my constituency; letters will suddenly appear demanding, let us say, £13,000 from each and every resident for changes that have been made and claims of service.

For some time, Labour has been pressing the Government to bring forward the promised leasehold reform part 2 Bill and to ensure it contains those recommendations set out in the Law Commission reports of 2020. As I mentioned at the outset, we have had so many scandals associated with property and mis-selling over the years, including endowment mortgages. There is now an entire parasitic industry surrounding home ownership in this country and it needs to be addressed. The situation is so much better in other countries around the world.

Twenty-one years ago, Labour introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. For the past 13 years, the Government have not seen this issue as a priority. The developers are profiteering and there is a correlation between the profits being made by those companies and the exploitative practices that go on around leasehold developments. This is a scandal and Labour in government will bring an end to it.