Regeneration in Reddish

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for regeneration in Reddish.

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you and other colleagues, Mr Western. I thank everyone who has contacted me regarding the status and future of Reddish library and Reddish baths, and more widely about investment across Reddish. The strength of local feeling on the issue is clear.

Reddish grew rapidly during the industrial revolution as canals and railways brought cotton mills, engineering works and brick-making industries to the area. In 1901, it was officially incorporated into the borough of Stockport. Following industrial decline, many factories closed, and today Reddish is mainly a residential area with a thriving community. Reddish is new to the Stockport constituency following parliamentary boundary changes in 2024. I am proud to represent the area.

I welcome the fact that this Labour Government have increased central Government funding for Stockport council: by 2028-29, Stockport’s core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, that is below the average increase for English councils. I have consistently called on the Labour Government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves after years of under-investment. The uplift marks a clear change in direction compared with the coalition years, when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short-changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well-off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.

[Navendu Mishra]

In meetings with the hon. Lady I have pushed the Government for more funding for Stockport, and I just mentioned that the Government should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver. I agree that more deprived and lower-income areas across Stockport and Greater Manchester deserve more attention; we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. As a politician, I will make political points, but I hope she sees that my voting record and my record in Hansard show that I do what is best for Stockport.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Navendu Mishra]

I am happy to take an intervention from Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he is absolutely right to press for his constituents. Does he agree that whether we are talking about an urban, industrial town like Reddish or a rural community, for instance my Strangford constituency, the foundational rules of successful regeneration remain exactly the same? Regeneration requires targeted central Government support, modernised infrastructure and revitalised high streets, so that people can live, work and thrive in their home towns. The hon. Gentleman is pressing for that. I support him, and wish him well.

[Navendu Mishra]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is extremely important to invest in our high streets and have thriving high streets with independent local businesses, as well as thriving district centres. We are lucky that Reddish has a wide range of fantastic independent local businesses, as I will mention later.

As I said, I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously, and nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in Reddish. Stockport council must not continue to overlook its needs when allocating funding. Reddish faces many issues, including serious health inequalities. In Reddish the average male life expectancy is 78 and the average female life expectancy is 83. That is lower than other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and the average female life expectancy is 84.

Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high-quality public facilities and the lack of investment in the area. The people of Reddish deserve good-quality public amenities and facilities, and better infrastructure in key green spaces like Reddish Vale and North Reddish park. Under the previous Government, many residents felt forgotten, while more affluent areas of Stockport benefited from sustained investment. Sadly, this is continuing under our Liberal Democrat-controlled local authority. It is purely a political choice, just as austerity was. Can I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives for five long years, delivering truly regressive policies such as austerity, the bedroom tax and much more?

A Reddish resident told me recently:

“It feels like Reddish is a cash cow, the residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return.”

Across my constituency, there has been a string of failures by Stockport council. Grand Central swimming pool, which has provided this country with sporting champions, is in need of investment, with the future of its 50-metre capacity uncertain. Many roads across my constituency are in an unacceptable state, with potholes and ineffective repairs. Stockport Central library has been closed since September 2025, with no timetable or indication of when it will be reopened by the council. The bridge near Harrison’s weir in Reddish Vale is still out of action almost 18 months after it was severely damaged by flooding, with Stockport council producing no timeline for its repair. Charges in council-owned carparks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard.

Turning to Reddish Baths, the site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station, and Reddish library. The 1908 buildings—library, fire station, baths and mortuary—are thought to be the only configuration of their type in the UK. They were a gift to the people of Reddish on joining the county borough of Stockport and are considered by some to be a symbol of the esteem—or the lack thereof—in which Reddish is held by Stockport council. Reddish Baths closed in 2005 and has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much-loved facility. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in this historic building. I want to pay tribute to Reddish North councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work with me on this issue.

I recently ran a community survey in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of Reddish Baths. Almost 1,000 residents responded, offering crucial insights into the community’s opinion: 86% of respondents placed swimming or fitness facilities in their top three preferred future uses for the site; 50% selected youth activities and services; 43% chose a community café or meeting space. The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture and expanding youth and family services. Some 65% of respondents want a plan that brings together the library, baths and community centre into a single, multi-use community and cultural hub. The most frequent expressed hope was clear: reopening the baths.

Many respondents referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valued building left unused. There is also a strong desire for a shared community asset that serves all ages. However, residents also raised concerns that future plans could be too expensive for local people, exclusionary for low-income households, older residents or young people, run in a way that limits genuine community access or harmful to the site’s heritage. Some residents also expressed distrust of Stockport council due to previous delays and failed plans. I contacted the chief executive and the leader of the council to reopen engagement on the future of the bath site. I am grateful to the chief executive for visiting the baths with me a few months back. Across five facilities in Stockport borough, the public supply is 2,648 square metres of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 square metres per thousand of the population, Stockport would need another 990 square metres, meaning that there is currently a clear water provision deficit.

Not only has Reddish lost its baths; we also have serious issues as Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful with my inquiries, which is highly disappointing because it receives a huge amount of funding from British taxpayers. Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening looking at the 2024-25 statistics, only 73% of year 7 pupils can swim 25 metres competently, and just 67% of children aged five to 16 can swim 25 metres unaided. That is 30,000, or 3.5%, fewer children than in 2017-18.

Turning to libraries, only 19% of children and young people in the north-west read daily in their free time. That is the second lowest percentage in England. Alongside this, research from the University of Liverpool suggests that 1.2 million residents in Greater Manchester could be digitally excluded, with around 450,000 residents being non-users of digital technology. Reddish library was the first to have been purpose built in Stockport. It is also the home to the longest continuous library provision in the borough. Reddish library needs investment in its equipment, staffing and opening hours. The building itself is crumbling with a leaky roof. The library is a vital community asset, supporting people of all ages to learn crucial literacy skills and providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free wi-fi provision, computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.

I am concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken, despite the importance of this facility to the local community. I have been lucky enough to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back that there were lots of buckets out in Reddish library catching the water that was leaking from the roof. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is also deeply concerning that scaffolding has now remained in place at Reddish library for over three years at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer. When including VAT, that cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport.

I am so disappointed that Stockport council made a combined application for four libraries across Stockport borough under the libraries improvement fund, rather than prioritising areas such as Reddish, where the need is most urgent. Reddish north has a digital exclusion risk index score of 4.37 out of 10. That is much higher than other parts of my constituency, where the scores are between 1 and 2.

The local authority, Stockport council, could have made a decision to submit a one-off individual application for Reddish library. However, Reddish was simply one of many bundled into one joint application, despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof in addition to the other issues that I mentioned. The council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to lobby the Government and the Minister on behalf of the council. However, communication with elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from Stockport council. I recognise and welcome the investment secured from this Labour Government for nearby Bramall Hall, in my neighbouring constituency of Cheadle, including £1 million this year in addition to the £1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that Reddish has once again been overlooked.

To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, not just in my constituency. However, the Liberal Democrats should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. I am a proud trade union member and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank Unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport council for all the work that they do and the vital services they provide to the people of Stockport. It has been noted that Reddish has fewer home library service users than other parts of Stockport borough with similar demographics. That is attributed, among other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicki and Belinda, Reddish’s long-serving librarians.

As we mark the National Year of Reading, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Read Easy Stockport, whose volunteers help adults improve their literacy and confidence. Facilities such as Reddish library play an essential role in supporting that work, but they need a roof that does not leak to do so.

I want to challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat council leadership in the local press. We are told that this Labour Government, who are trying to address the effects of the coalition years of austerity and cuts, have made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. Let me be clear: blaming this Government, who have been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect in Reddish under the Liberal Democrats. The real question the people of Reddish and myself as the local MP ask is: why do some communities always seem to be at the back of the queue? Residents in areas such as Reddish can see the difference for themselves. They can see nearby areas getting investment attention, yet their infrastructure and public realm is left to deteriorate even further. If council leaders are prepared to speak loudly and publicly about funding shortfalls, they should also be prepared to explain their own choices. How have local resources been allocated? Which communities benefited the most, and why do some areas such as Reddish repeatedly feel overlooked and, frankly, invisible?

One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes; one cannot demand accountability from the Government while avoiding accountability for one’s actions—the “one” being the Liberal Democrat leadership at Stockport council. The leadership at Stockport council should stop looking for someone else to blame and explain to the good people of Reddish why their neighbourhood has been left behind.

[Lisa Smart]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Navendu Mishra]

I have limited time and am already running behind. I may give way later, if I can.

The people of Reddish are not asking for special treatment; they just want fairness. I ask that the people of Reddish get equal treatment, and the same investment and urgency that appear elsewhere in Stockport borough. If money is so tight, why does this neglect never seem to fall equally across Stockport borough?

As an MP, I expect my correspondence and freedom of information requests to be dealt with promptly. The fact that I have had to repeatedly chase responses from Stockport council is unacceptable, and it inevitably leads me to question the level of service that local residents receive. If inquiries from elected representatives such as councillors and MPs are not being answered in a timely manner, it is reasonable to be concerned about the responsiveness and accountability experienced by constituents.

I made a freedom of information submission on 23 April. Stockport council contacted me on 5 May to say that it was unable to respond within 20 working days and needed 40 working days. The deadline for that was 22 June, which has come and gone. Today is 1 July, and I have been told that I must continue to wait for the information. The council cannot even respond to FOIs in a timely manner, which is frankly unacceptable.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Lancashire Hill, a development built with the ambitious vision of creating a thriving community. Despite decades of challenges, it retains that strong community spirit today. Residents look out for one another and demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. However, the buildings are clearly crying out for investment. Constituents regularly raise concerns about ageing infrastructure, unreliable lifts, damp and mould, security issues, antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and the need for major refurbishment to bring homes up to a modern standard.

Lancashire Hill is now recognised as one of the most deprived neighbourhoods not only in Stockport but in Greater Manchester, making its exclusion from recent Government regeneration and recovery grant funding all the more difficult to understand.

[Lisa Smart]

indicated assent.

[Navendu Mishra]

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), is nodding.

At a time when the Labour Government and the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation are helping to deliver 8,000 new homes, the case for investment in Lancashire Hill has never been stronger. Growth must be matched by fairness. While we build for the future, we must not overlook existing communities living in ageing housing and facing persistent challenges. Lancashire Hill deserves to share in that vision for renewal, with the investment necessary to modernise homes, improve the local environment and give residents the quality of life that they rightly expect.

Many constituents living on the Lancashire Hill estate feel that they deserve better, and I agree with them. I would welcome the Minister’s attention on the acute challenges facing communities with significant need. I invite the Minister—my good friend—to visit Stockport. I promise to take her to the UK’s only hat museum, which is in my constituency. I would also like to take her to Lancashire Hill to meet residents and see at first hand the issues and challenges facing the community, as well as the extraordinary community spirit that endures there. I want the Government to provide the investment needed to modernise that vital development, so that families can enjoy the safe, secure and high-quality homes that they deserve. Stockport council also has a duty of care to the residents of Lancashire Hill, and I want the council administration to take tangible action for them.

Reddish is a fantastic area with so many wonderful community groups, charities and faith groups. Re:dish provides food, supplies and vital support for local people, the friends of Reddish south station campaign tirelessly and passionately for better transport links, and Houldsworth working men’s club, which was built in 1874, is an essential community hub. Community spirit in this area is alive and well. For last year’s small business Saturday, I ran a competition to celebrate the work of small businesses in my constituency, and the vast majority of nominations came from Reddish, including Reddish Ale, the Last Track coffee shop, Ozzy’s café, Johnny’s café and so many more. You and I are good friends, Mr Western, and you know that I like cider. On your next visit to Stockport, I promise to take you to Reddish Ale for a lovely pint of cider. It was great to see the community spirit coming together to honour their contributions.

I emphasise to the Minister that communities such as Reddish cannot be left behind when future funding decisions are made. The £20 million awarded to Brinnington through Pride in Place is very welcome, and I am so grateful to the Government for awarding it after years of decline and austerity under previous Governments, but it is essential that support is not concentrated in a few areas alone and that places like Reddish also benefit from meaningful investment.

Areas with high deprivation, ageing infrastructure and long-standing under-investment need targeted support if the Government are serious about levelling up opportunity and improving quality of life. If Stockport council’s Liberal Democrat administration is serious about addressing the country’s largest deprivation gap, it must ensure that all parts of our borough get a fair share of funding.

Representation of the People Bill

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Democracy is valuable. It is hard won and always worth protecting and defending. Stockport played a major role in the 1819 Peterloo massacre, when a large contingent of local protestors marched to Manchester to demand voting reform.

I believe that we must always look for ways to make our democratic system more accessible, more inclusive and more representative. Giving young people the chance to have a say in the future of our country is important. Decisions that the Government make now will not only affect young people today but have an enduring impact on their entire life. As such, it is only right and fair that young people are able to play a role in our democratic system by voting.

I want to thank Michelle McLaughlin MBE and her team at Stockport college for their outstanding work in enrolling students on to the electoral register. The college automatically registers students to vote as part of the enrolment process. That simple administrative step removes barriers for young people and makes participation the norm, rather than the exception. Trafford and Stockport College Group was the first further education institution in England to launch this type of voter registration service for 16-year-olds, ensuring that more young people across Stockport engage with the democratic process at an early age. This is exactly the kind of proactive approach that we should be encouraging nationwide. The team would be grateful for a ministerial visit, given the work that they have done in this area.

Sadly, women and minority ethnic representatives have faced a shocking increase in threatening behaviour directed at them in recent years. My understanding is that women of colour have the worst abuse and threats directed at them. Abuse, threats and intimidation of any kind are simply unacceptable. They risk deterring people from taking part in public life or putting themselves forward for elected office. I welcome the important measures to protect candidates, electoral staff and campaigners from intimidation and abuse.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made an important point about people experiencing homelessness. They should have the right to vote too, and I thank him for making an intervention about that. I support his suggestion that we help more people who are experiencing homelessness into our democratic system.

I would like to say a few words about standards in public life, in the light of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election. In February 2026—just last month—a Tameside council report found that a member of the infamous “Trigger Me Timbers” WhatsApp group had made racist comments towards me. They questioned my accent and my looks and ridiculed me. More importantly, they did the same to many members of the public and Labour’s membership. As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, this person was a major participant in the group. The report found that a “reasonable person” would find their remarks about me racist. This person was a Labour councillor at the time, and a former Member of this House and a current Member of this House were active members of that hateful WhatsApp group. Sadly, I had to find out from the press that Tameside council had commissioned that report, and that a ruling was made about the participant’s behaviour against me and others. As is to be expected, this has had an enormous negative impact on my family and me.

Can the Minister tell us what more the Government intend to do to strengthen standards for elected representatives, both at local government and parliamentary level? That could include tougher sanctions for serious misconduct, a mandatory code of conduct, and accessible routes of redress for victims of such appalling behaviour. I am in a very privileged position—I am a Member of the House of Commons, and I am able to deliver this speech and make my points clear—but many members of the public, and many lay members of the Labour party, do not have that same opportunity. I hope that the Minister will listen to my comments.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. It makes important progress in strengthening participation and protecting candidates, but it could go further in lifting standards among elected representatives. Everyone, especially elected representatives, has a responsibility to treat all people with respect, regardless of their views, background, appearance or culture. We should expect that from our colleagues, but sadly that has not been my experience. I am saddened to say that in my view, the Labour party has not dealt with this in a very good way. I would like to end by thanking everyone at Stockport council’s democratic and electoral services team. They do a really important job for our town, and I am grateful to them.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman and his service on the Select Committee. He has a lot of expertise in this area. I would say two things in response. First, we published two consultations on the home buying and selling process to try to modernise that process, and we are looking at some of those issues as part of that. Secondly, on service charges, one reason we had to hold quite a complicated and technical consultation on the implementation of the 2024 Act’s service charge provisions is precisely the complexity and the number of factors to deal with. We received incredibly useful feedback in response to that consultation, and that will shape how we take those measures forward. I want to be clear, though, that we are talking about how and not whether we take those measures forward; I want to see them brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity, because we absolutely know the impact that high and rising service charges are having on leaseholders across the country.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

People in Stockport and Greater Manchester have suffered for many years with poor service and unfair treatment by managing agents. Does the commitment by the Government to protect leaseholders mark a break from years of weak regulation by the coalition and then Conservative Governments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We did see a considerable amount of deregulation under the coalition Government and their successors. I will give the previous Government credit, as I have done before, for bringing forward the 2024 Act; it does include some limited relief for leaseholders and some new rights and protections. However, we need to take it forward and finish the job, as I made clear in opposition that Labour would. As I said, we are consulting on changes to increase protections over service charges—incidentally, that same consultation included a number of proposals recommended by Lord Best in his 2019 report, “Regulation of Property Agents”, including the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents. We are clear, though, that that consultation and the measures within it are not the final step in the regulation of managing agents, and we will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in Lord Best’s report.

Local Government Finance

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I might be a proud northerner, but I was once a councillor in a London borough, so I do not need to be told what poverty in London looks like. In my statement, I mentioned the possibilities for raising income that some councils have access to, and we want to work with local authorities on that. I am determined that we will not make this about geographical division in our country; we will make it a journey for all councils back towards financial sustainability. That is the objective, and I will happily work with the hon. Lady on that if that is what she wants to do.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my officership of an all-party parliamentary group.

In past years, protection uplift funding for Greater Manchester fire and rescue service has been calculated based on inaccurate data, meaning that Greater Manchester receives significantly less money than regions with far fewer buildings. Will the Minister correct this error, so that GMFRS has the necessary resources to carry out essential inspection and enforcement activity across Stockport and Greater Manchester?

[Alison McGovern]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will happily discuss it with him and with my colleague the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). If my hon. Friend thinks there are errors, he can by all means send us more details, and we will work on that.

Pride in Place

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the Conservatives’ record, I would expect a little bit more contrition.

We are focused on the task ahead, which is the opportunity to drive change in our communities. I hope Members across the House can join us in that endeavour.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

The £5 billion investment in the pride in place programme means that Brinnington and Stockport will benefit from a £20 million investment. What does the Minister think of the former Government’s levelling-up slogan, which in reality was a levelling-down agenda for opportunity, ambition and trust?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right—levelling up was a hollow slogan. We see from the record that there was no substance behind it. Unlike the Conservative party, we are doing the job of investing in our communities, putting them in the driving seat. That will be a game changer in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting)

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have until 3.40 pm, and I have seen six Members indicate they have questions.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Q I am grateful to panellists for being here and giving up their time. Private schools have had visibility of the Labour party policy on this matter for a long time. I wonder why the sector seems to be so unprepared for the changes in the light of the new Government coming in and delivering on their manifesto pledge.

Barnaby Lenon: Personally, I do not think they are particularly unprepared. As you say, we have had plenty of notice.

[Navendu Mishra]

Q They seem very surprised.

Barnaby Lenon: Well, they should not be surprised, because the Independent Schools Council and the Independent Schools’ Bursars Association—three of us on the panel—have been talking to schools for the past year and a bit. Schools have been receiving advice about how to prepare for it, particularly from David’s organisation. I do not think it is true to say that they have been taken by surprise. It is worth saying that they are charities—mostly small charities—which are operating on tight margins. They are not extravagant in the way they operate. They have found it difficult to know how to face 20% VAT. They have had plenty of notice, and the governing bodies of those schools are individually responsible for taking the actions that the sensible ones will be taking.

[Navendu Mishra]

I take your point that—

[The Chair]

Order. We have eight minutes for six people, so only one question each.

Families in Temporary Accommodation

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree; indeed, it is the only solution. The only way we are going to bring an end to use of expensive and appalling temporary accommodation is through building more social housing units. After I have spoken about the consequences of temporary accommodation, I will look at its cost to the taxpayer, and the billions of pounds that we are spending on it, which frankly I could think of such better uses for. Finally, I will speak of the solution to this mess.

Stories of dislocation and crisis alone could fill the debate. I have managed to get two or three such cases resolved in the last week. These are a selection; I could have doubled, tripled or quadrupled the examples of the conditions that people are being kept in, but I will start with just one. Joanna was placed in a shared house when she was four months pregnant, along with four men she did not know. She had been living there for 14 months, and by the time she came to see me she had a nine-month-old daughter. Like countless other pregnant women and parents with small children, she worried endlessly for her safety. The biggest worry for people like Joanna is that they have no safe sleeping arrangements for their babies. That is important, because we know that between April 2019 and March 2023, 55 children died as a result of the temporary accommodation they were housed in—42 of them were under one. The most likely cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome because of the lack of safe sleeping provision, such as cots. I would like to think that I speak for the whole House when I say that that is unacceptable.

After their children start going to primary school, families in temporary accommodation face a whole new set of challenges, because at least 30,000 families were placed in a borough outside their home: taking children out of school, and the families away from their support networks; taking parents and adult children away from jobs; and taking the families away from the hospitals and GP surgeries that they might desperately need. Once we remove a desperate, vulnerable family from their home environment, there are consequences for their children in school attainment and attendance, and all sorts of other things.

The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but I know it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find such accommodation, particularly for larger families. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance. One child was moved homes five times in the first five weeks of his GCSE exams and was forced to rely on a charity that paid for his taxi to his first exam.

On one day at the civic centre in my constituency, the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford—170 miles away from their home borough—and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? It is a ludicrous situation, and it means that thousands of children turn up at school dirty, tired and underdeveloped, far from ready for their vital first year. Some will have grown up confined to a small room, shared with the rest of their family, with no space to play, walk or socialise with other children. Others might live in mixed housing blocks alongside drug users, where their older siblings prefer to use a potty in the cupboard rather than queue in the corridor for a shared toilet.

I am happy to take the Minister to the temporary accommodation that many of the families that I represent have to live in. She can meet Mr and Ms N, who have five children all under the age of eight. They were originally living in my local borough of Merton in south-west London when they were made homeless, but they have been sent to every corner of London to find temporary accommodation—first to Walthamstow in north-east London and then to Ilford. Ms N is now living over an hour away from St George’s Hospital in south-west London, where she needs to go for her for appointments, medication, and scans. Her kids are missing school because of the more than two hours they have to spend on public transport every day.

The Minister can also meet Mr and Ms G, who were made homeless when they were living in Colliers Wood, which is also in my home borough of Merton. They were moved to West Croydon, from where their kids had a 90-minute journey to school, and at the end of last year they were relocated to temporary housing in Tottenham—again, miles away from the place they called home for nearly two years. They had finally found a school where their children were happy and starting to be more social, confident and secure, and I can read to the House what their primary school had to say about one of their children:

“Alfie is currently in reception. He has settled in really well and has a strong friendship circle. His attendance is extremely strong at 97% and amounts to only two absences due to illness. His punctuality is currently 100%.

Alfie’s confidence has grown, and we are very proud of his development. We look forward to seeing him progress at this school.

Alfie’s parents have relied on a strong network of parents to help them navigate through the daily aspects of school life.

I would worry that the impact of moving school as well as a new home would be very upsetting for him.”

That is one of the many consequences of our country’s lack of investment in new social housing. I am conscious of time, although I realise I have benefited from the early closure of the previous debate.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In January of this year, my local authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, had 153 households in temporary accommodation. That figure was 101 in January 2022. The use of hotels alone cost the council £625,000 in the last financial year, diverting resources away from other much-needed support services during the cost of living crisis. Does my good friend agree that the Government have failed families in temporary accommodation?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree. Those families are being failed, and they are being failed by us all unless we get action to build more social housing.

The shocking thing is that the weaker someone is, and the less fight they have, the worse they get treated. A child with special needs will often find themselves in the ridiculous situation whereby the social services department—in the same council as the housing department that placed the child outside their borough—scraps the transport to their special school because their council has moved them out of their area. It is extraordinary that we make victims of those people, who just cannot stand up for themselves.

Members would not believe the fortune that taxpayers spend on such unacceptable accommodation—accommodation that you wouldn’t put your pet in. London boroughs spend £90 million every month on it, which is 40% more than they spent last year. Councils in England alone spent £1.74 billion on temporary accommodation in 2022/23—that is 10% more than the year before and a 62% increase over five years. Some councils seriously risk bankruptcy because of the cost of temporary accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Yes, and I will go on to explain what the Government are doing. One of our schemes is the local authority housing fund, through which we have given £1.2 billion to local authorities so that they can build and purchase housing, both for recent arrivals such as Ukrainians and Afghans and for temporary accommodation. I believe that the hon. Lady’s Borough of Merton was a beneficiary in round 2 of the local authority housing fund, and received just under £750,000.

As I was saying, we have an affordable homes programme, which is a massive £11.5 billion programme that will provide thousands of new homes for rent and sale across the country. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the quality of temporary accommodation is also very important. The number of non-decent homes has fallen by 2 million since 2010. What is more, from April we restored the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile. This means that 1.6 million low-income households will be on average about £800 a year better off, making it more affordable for families on benefits to rent properties in the private sector.

[Navendu Mishra]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning the local housing allowance. It has been uprated, but rents in Stockport are already some of the highest in Greater Manchester and the north-west, and local housing allowance is not sufficient to meet market needs in Stockport. Will she revisit this issue, and specifically look at the rates in Greater Manchester and the north-west, reflecting not only on the need but on the average rates?

[Felicity Buchan]

The local housing allowance has been uprated to the 30th percentile, which means people should be able to afford the bottom 30% of properties on that allowance; the intention is not that they can afford every property. The provision falls under the Department for Work and Pensions, but there is an ongoing commitment to review the local housing allowance.

Ultimately, we all want to avoid people facing homelessness in the first place, and we are putting almost £2.4 billion over three years towards tackling this issue, including £1.2 billion through the homelessness prevention grant. Since the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force in 2018, more than 740,000 households have been prevented from losing their housing or have been supported into settled accommodation. The Act supports the most vulnerable, including by providing temporary accommodation to pregnant women and victims of domestic abuse. We have come a long way, but I recognise that challenges remain and the impact that living in temporary accommodation is having on too many families.

The hon. Lady mentioned the data from the National Child Mortality Database. Clearly, that is incredibly concerning, and it is why we updated the homelessness code of guidance in February to make it clear that temporary accommodation should not be considered suitable for a family with children under two years old if there is not enough space for a cot, and that housing authorities should support families to secure a cot where needed.

Where families are placed in temporary accommodation, I share the ambition to improve housing quality across the board, and to ensure that families know how to complain when they are being let down. This is the thinking behind the new proactive consumer regime being introduced via the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which gives the Regulator of Social Housing new tools to hold social landlords to account. The current review of the decent homes standard and measures in the Renters (Reform) Bill also aim to strengthen standards and regulation across all tenures, including temporary accommodation.

The hon. Lady mentioned the health and education impacts of living in temporary accommodation, and that is something I want to dig into more deeply. I had a conversation last week with the Shared Health Foundation, with which I know she spends time. We had a productive conversation, and I commit to working across Departments to look at improving health and education impacts for those in temporary accommodation. We are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable in our society, are safe and have access to an excellent education. That is why we are providing more than £2 billion in 2024-25 through the pupil premium to support disadvantaged pupils, which will include many who live in temporary accommodation.

Concerns have been raised with me that children, and indeed adults who are in temporary accommodation, may lose their places on NHS waiting lists if they move out of their integrated care board area. I have been reassured by colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care that that should not be the case. I know that was a concern of the Shared Health Foundation, and I am happy to follow up on any of those concerns, but that should not be the case.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues. None of us wants to see large numbers of people in temporary accommodation. We want those numbers to fall, which is why we have a series of Government initiatives such as the homelessness prevention grant, the local authority housing fund and the local housing allowance rate. It is clear that we must address the drivers and impact of homelessness on children living in temporary accommodation. We all need to work collectively to get those numbers down and do the best we can for the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Private Rented Sector: Regulation

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate. On a more negative note, housing is a constituency issue on which I receive a vast amount of correspondence. I am grateful to several local organisations, including Citizens Advice Stockport, Stockport Tenants Union and Stockport Homes, which do a lot to support tenants who might be struggling and homeless people in our constituency and town. They do a really important job, but the bottom line is that those organisations are a last resort. The Government have failed, and they continue to fail.

It also happens to be the case that when issues arise in the private sector it is always the social housing sector that must pick up the pieces, at a considerable cost in terms of emergency and temporary accommodation. I have cases in my inbox about landlords who are serving section 21 notices because they know they can get more rent from a new tenant. I have cases in which the housing standards are very poor, with damp and mould—my hon. Friend mentioned a couple of such cases in his inbox. People have come to my office who have an informal agreement with their landlord with regard to their tenancy, which offers them zero security and has a negative impact on their physical and mental health.

Members on both sides of the Chamber will be aware of people in their constituency who cannot afford deposits for a tenancy and who can forget about saving up for a deposit for a mortgage because their wages are so low. Rents keep going up, and they keep getting priced out of tenancies, mortgages and secure housing, which I believe is a fundamental human right—I am sure many Members will agree that secure, safe, clean housing is a fundamental human right. People with pets are often disadvantaged when looking for tenancies; I have had several cases on that issue. The local housing allowance simply is not adequate in my borough. The median rent value in Stockport is much higher than the local housing allowance in the two broad rental market areas, so it simply is not good enough.

I would like to mention a couple of cases. One constituent said that his son had to enter a bidding war to get his apartment in Stockport—not a house, an apartment—which was advertised at £850 per calendar month. At the end of the bidding war, the agreement was made at £880 per calendar month. I appreciate that £30 a month might not be a lot for some people, but for a lot of people struggling in the current cost of living crisis it is a large amount of money. If we multiply that by 12, it is a significant amount for many people on low wages. Another constituent had his rent increased by a huge £300 per calendar month, and the landlord still refused to undertake essential repairs to the property. That sort of behaviour is simply shameful. I do not see much action from the Government, and I do not see a credible plan to tackle these issues.

I would like to mention one more case, which is that of a single person earning less than £30,000 a year who does not qualify for any help and has lived in a tiny one-bedroom flat of 42 square metres for many years. The property has not been updated in many years. It has dated storage heaters, which are very expensive to run during the daytime, and rent increases annually by 3%. However, the constituent has been told that this year it will increase by 5%. She feels that she has no security and stability. In addition to the rent going up by 5%, she was issued an affordability assessment by the landlord’s estate agent, which implied that if she was not able to meet the threshold, she would be asked to leave. When questioned, the landlord’s agent said that they are

“employed by Landlords to protect their assets and to minimise their risks”.

That sort of behaviour has to be labelled as shameful. Protecting an asset should not be more important than someone having the opportunity to live in safe, clean and secure housing. This person told me that she cannot find alternative affordable accommodation, and she has a cat, which many landlords will not accept. That goes back to my point that many people who have pets are simply excluded from the market.

The average rent in Stockport is £850 per calendar month, which is almost a 9% increase since 2021. Most people in England have not seen their wages go up by 9% since 2021. Increasing rents and the cost of living crisis are adding up. Last year, Citizens Advice reported that rent growth was at its fastest in five years, and one in five expect their rent to rise this year. Additionally, it estimated that 425,000 renters are in arrears, owing an average of £937 each. That is almost £1,000, which is a significant amount of money for anyone.

A point has to be made about the demographics. Young people and people from working-class backgrounds are now losing at least 30% of their monthly income to rent. The Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill is a positive step, but there are lots of loopholes, and there have to be assurances on a number of factors in the Bill.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one factor that should be taken into account is Government support for greater availability of good-quality social housing, which would help to suppress the increase in rents? Allied with that, the Bill and the tax regime should pursue bad landlords, support good landlords and protect tenants at the same time.

[Navendu Mishra]

I agree, although my experience is that Stockport Homes, one of the major local social housing providers, has been struggling to secure properties because their cost has risen significantly. Recent census data shows that Stockport has seen a 48% increase in property values in the past five years, whereas the average in England is 20%. For social housing providers, securing or building new properties, particularly with the rising cost of building materials, is a significant financial commitment that many of them are not able to make. I agree that bad landlords need to be pursued. I do not think the enforcement regime is good enough. Of course, there are good landlords out there—I am not going to dispute that—but they often get tarred with the same brush that bad landlords leave us with.

The Renters (Reform) Bill is a positive step, but there are many loopholes. The rules around section 21, on landlords evicting tenants by claiming to move families in, need to be looked at. There is no provision on rising rents. It is unclear what the penalties will be for landlords who break the rules. There are so many loopholes that we need a serious discussion about how to deliver for people across England.

I have already mentioned the statistics on the average rent values in my constituency. I would like to conclude by making two further points. Owner-occupiers spend 18% of their household income on mortgage payments, while private renters spend 31% of their household income on rent. That is simply unfair, and it is also unsustainable. It is evident from the data for constituencies across England that many—not all—private landlords are making large amounts of money out of the cost of living crisis.

Yesterday, Labour MPs, along with those of several opposition parties, voted to end the unfair leasehold system. Labour is serious about reforming the housing sector; it is not just warm words. I am sorry to say that the Government have failed and continue to let down renters consistently, year after year. In 13-plus years of this Government, we have not seen serious action. I hope the Minister will address these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Owen]

It behoves all of us to represent everybody who lives in rented accommodation, whether they are students, pensioners, workers, people who are not working at all or families. I will talk more about that.

Only last week, more than three and a half years after it was first promised, did we finally see the Secretary of State’s Renters (Reform) Bill. We welcome that long-overdue legislation and look forward to engaging constructively on its development, but it is clear that in improving it we will have our work cut out for us. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was right to highlight the loopholes in the Bill. He mentioned unfair evictions and spoke powerfully and movingly about the heartache and uncertainty caused by section 21 notices, which are a leading cause of homelessness in England. The Government’s delay since first committing to ending them in April 2019, more than four years ago, has resulted in 60,000 households being threatened with homelessness by section 21 notices.

Labour and our stakeholders welcome the Bill’s steps towards scrapping section 21 evictions, but there remain ways for ill-intentioned landlords to remove tenants unjustly. The Government must take steps swiftly to amend that flaw in their legislation. In the short term, we call on them to extend notice periods to a legal minimum of four months, with firm, punitive measures for landlords who do not abide by the law.

We are not naive about the fact that some evictions are warranted. Landlords who are dealing with antisocial behaviour or even criminal activity from their tenants must be supported in reclaiming their properties. We recognise that robust and effective grounds such as those cannot be diminished. However, the Government have yet to assure us that grounds could not be exploited by bad-faith landlords to continue their unjust evictions. Will the Minister provide any detail on how the Government will defend against that?

The Bill also lacks support for local authorities to act on injustices in their local private rented sector, as has been mentioned throughout the debate. We expect measures that would strengthen enforcement powers, require councils to report on enforcement activity and allow them to cap the advance rent that local landlords can ask for. The Government owe local authorities an explanation of why they have neglected to give them the muscle to ensure that the new legislation is successfully enacted.

It is also incredibly troubling that the Bill does not include a ban on landlords refusing to rent to benefit claimants or those with children. That allows discriminatory “no DSS” practices to continue. No children? This is hardly a family-friendly policy, is it? I would be grateful if the Minister assured us today that this oversight will be reviewed and amended.

[Navendu Mishra]

I receive a lot of correspondence from people who have pets and are not able to get a secure tenancy. Often, they are people who live on their own with their pet, and they do not have a family member or are housebound. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to strengthen the legislation in relation not only to people on benefits but to people who have pets? There is a whole other debate to be had about people who have no recourse to public funds.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention, and he is absolutely right. What we should see from this legislation is the removal of barriers to good housing for all renters, but what we are actually seeing is, unfortunately, opportunities being missed. I sincerely hope that the Minister takes on board some of the suggestions that have been made today.

When it comes to affordability—or, in reality, unaffordability—the freezing of local housing allowance has only exacerbated the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton explained. In many parts of the country—including, as we have heard, in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Erith and Thamesmead and for Liverpool, Walton; and in my own constituency in Luton—rents in the private rented sector are surging and the costs involved with moving are soaring. By making the shameful decision to freeze LHA yet again, the Government have pushed millions of hard-pressed tenants to breaking point, with the risk of mass arrears and evictions that that entails—more evictions, more temporary accommodation and more people sleeping on the streets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport highlighted the situation when it comes to affordability. It is becoming harder for our constituents not only to find an affordable place to rent but to stay for the long term. Some of our lowest-paid workers face rent rises of 30% to 40% within their tenancy. Labour is exploring options to address this, starting with consulting landlord and tenant groups on how best to stabilise rent increases within tenancies. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what discussions she has had on the issue. We do not want to see people continually having to jump from place to place, finding somewhere affordable that turns out to be overcome with mould or somewhere decent that then has its rent doubled. That is no way to live.

It does not have to be this way: Labour has other ideas. Our housing White Paper, to be produced within our first 100 days if we are elected to government, will set out how longer-term tenancies will become the norm, because we know that tenancy security is key for a settled life and that home must be a place where we can relax, knowing that another catastrophe is not around the corner.

We are ambitious about revolutionising what “home” means in Britain. We stand for building new homes. That is why the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), proudly has the mantra of “council housing, council housing, council housing”, and it is why Labour-led councils, such as my own in Luton, are building homes. They are building eco-friendly council homes, fit for the future.

We will help more first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder; we will abolish the scandalous leasehold scheme; and we will introduce a national register of landlords and licensing for letting agents, as well as a legally binding decent homes standard, updated for the next decade. We will afford new rights and protections to tenants, including the right to have pets, the right to make reasonable alterations, the right to request speedy repairs and, as has been mentioned, mandatory longer notice periods from landlords.

Labour will tilt the balance of power back towards renters by introducing a powerful new private renters charter, to make renting fairer, more secure and more affordable. We will achieve this by finally bringing forward an effectively regulated private rented sector. This is what our constituents need and it is certainly what they deserve.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to have the opportunity to make my remarks. Of course, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this debate. I also thank the other Members who have spoken, who I will turn to in just a moment. They have spoken passionately about the need for greater security for tenants and improved standards in the private rented sector.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his considerable experience to this debate. He has a long history of campaigning and speaking on this issue in Parliament, and I say to him and to any Member that of course the Government will listen to constructive dialogue from all parties in the House. That is the right thing to do as we go forward and get this legislation right.

I thank the other Members who have spoken—the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare)—who all made useful contributions. We all agree there is a considerable amount of consensus that we need to provide a better deal for renters, which is exactly what we are doing through the Renters (Reform) Bill. Members have brought to the House’s attention, again, the very good reasons why we need to act and are acting.

The private rented sector is the most expensive, least secure and lowest quality of all housing tenures. A fifth of renters pay a third of their income to live in substandard accommodation. That is the reality and it is unacceptable. We are determined to crack down on irresponsible and criminal landlords and to make the private rented sector a better place to live and work. That is why I am delighted to talk about the vital measures we are bringing forward to meet the needs of renters and good landlords.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton brought to my attention, as did other Members, the experiences of constituents. I assure him and the House that I have spoken to many tenants who have faced situations similar to the ones he described. I visited tenants in Leeds last week and saw for myself some of the conditions and why we need to act. It is worth reminding the House that the reforms are the biggest in a generation and the biggest in the sector for many years. They have been welcomed by tenants’ groups, people who represent tenants, Shelter and many others that have been referenced by Members. They have also been welcomed by groups who represent landlords. It is important to get that balance right.

I know that feeling safe and secure in a home is vital to a person’s wellbeing and so that they are able to put down roots in a community. The threat of a section 21 no-fault eviction with just two months’ notice hangs over many renters and prevents them from complaining about poor standards. The Renters (Reform) Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to end section 21 no-fault evictions. Tenants will be able to challenge poor standards without fear of retaliatory eviction. We will abolish fixed terms and move to periodic tenancies that allow either party to end the tenancy when they need to.

As Members have highlighted, there are legitimate reasons why landlords could or would need to regain their properties, which is why we are reforming the grounds so that they are fair, comprehensive and efficient. In future, landlords will be able to regain possession only if one of the grounds for possession defined in law applies. We will introduce a new ground for use when the landlord intends to sell the property and extend the existing moving-in ground so that it can also be used if close family members of the landlord intend to live in the property.

We have changed the rent arrears grounds so that they are fair and proportionate, striking a balance between protecting tenants’ security and supporting landlords who face undue financial burdens. We have retained the existing mandatory rent arrears ground that allows a landlord to serve notice once a tenant is in two months’ rent arrears, and introduced a new ground for repeated rent arrears.

To ensure that landlords can swiftly gain possession when a tenant’s antisocial behaviour is causing problems for their neighbours and communities, we are allowing landlords to make a possession claim to the courts immediately, and we have lowered the discretionary ground to include behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We are considering further changes to the way the courts handle antisocial behaviour possession cases, including in respect of prioritisation and the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. There are other grounds, and I encourage Members to look at the information that the Government have published.

We understand that rent is likely to be a tenant’s biggest monthly expense. It is important that tenants have notice of any rent rises so that they are able to plan effectively. Our reforms will simplify the system for tenants and landlords. All rent increases will take place via one mechanism. We will retain existing legislation that allows rent increases once per year in periodic tenancies, and increase the notice that landlords must give to two months, thereby giving tenants more time to plan and seek advice.

Our reforms will also prevent revenge or forced evictions by the small minority of landlords who may look to use rent hikes to force a tenant out once section 21 can no longer be used. That will create a fairer system that allows both parties to negotiate rents effectively, while protecting security of tenure. Where the landlord has served notice on the tenant to increase their rent, the tenant may refer the notice to the tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market and will determine the rent. That will help to avoid the large rent increases used by a minority of landlords as a back-door method of eviction. We will update the guidance to ensure that tribunal users have the confidence and information they need to engage with it effectively. That includes helping parties to understand how they can provide evidence of comparable rents.

The Conservative party does not support rent controls. Evidence suggests that they would discourage investment in the sector, lead to declining property standards, and be negative for both tenants and landlords. We are absolutely committed to outlawing the unacceptable discrimination against families with children and people in receipt of benefits through blanket bans, but we want to ensure that landlords retain the final say over who they rent to. Members have asked for more clarity on that, and we are carefully considering how we get it right. We will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Members raised local authority enforcement. We expect local councils to take a proactive approach to enforcement and make it a priority. Substantial civil penalties will be available if landlords fail to comply with our reforms. Local councils are able to keep the revenue they receive from civil penalties; it is ringfenced for further enforcement activity. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that, where necessary, the net additional costs that fall on local councils as a result of our reforms are fully funded, and we will continue to explore how best to create a sustainable self-funding system over the long term, including through fees.

Members will be interested to hear that we are providing £14 million to 10 pathfinder projects that have been designed to build capacity and team capabilities and to test and disseminate innovative enforcement approaches. I am pleased that one of those pathfinder projects is being led by Liverpool City Council, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton. It is working with a number of other key players locally to create a multi-agency, intelligence-led model for proactive enforcement in the PRS. That will ensure that enforcement is streamlined more effectively, particularly against landlords engaged in serious criminality. I have seen for myself the effectiveness of the selective licensing scheme in Leeds, to which Members referred, and how effectively the housing teams work to deal with issues.

[Navendu Mishra]

The Minister is generous to give way. Will she address the point that, over the past 13 years, local authorities have lost hundreds of millions of pounds in central Government funding? My local authority in Stockport has lost a significant amount of money since 2010, when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came in.

The Government do not seem to have a sense of urgency in addressing the loopholes in the Renters (Reform) Bill and the crisis in the private rented sector. There are no Conservative Back Benchers in this debate; they must have either local authorities that are financially secure or tenancies that are long-term and reasonably priced.

[Rachel Maclean]

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I thought he was going to ask a question about the issues in front of me. I am happy to address them. I will continue my remarks, which will address the substantive issues of this debate.

Information is key when it comes to regulating effectively and efficiently. That is why the Bill will legislate for a new private rented sector database that will support the new privately rented property portal digital service. That service will support the Government’s aim of reducing the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030, and will give local councils tools to drive criminal landlords out of the private rented sector. It will help landlords to understand their obligations and give tenants the information they need to make informed choices.

My team is working hard to develop the portal, which recently passed its Government Digital Service assessment. It was assessed against standards to ensure that it meets clear user needs, is simple to use, is designed securely to protect privacy, and uses tools and technology that are fit for purpose. We will take forward the development of that service and continue to engage with end users to ensure we get it right.

Wythenshawe and Sale Town Centres: Regeneration

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on Wythenshawe and Sale town centres. Town centres are the heart and soul of our communities. They are places where people come together to shop, to eat, to drink and to socialise. They are centres of trade and business. They provide jobs, skills and opportunities. They are the backbone of local economies. Over time, they have experienced periods of boom and bust. Each has its own unique history and identity, and I am sure that they are sources of local pride for every MP in the Chamber. But, sadly, over recent years they have faced many challenges including under-investment, changing retail and leisure demands, covid-19 and, now, the cost of living crisis.

I would like to use this Adjournment debate as an opportunity to pay tribute to the two town centres in my constituency—Wythenshawe and Sale—and highlight their important economic and social roles. I will also highlight the challenges and opportunities that they face and ask the Government what plans they have to support them. Too often, we hear this Government pay lip service to levelling up, the woes of left-behind people and places, and the importance of economic growth. Tonight, I want to talk about the reality of levelling up, and what levelling up actually means, or should mean, to places like Wythenshawe and Sale, and to people like me who grew up and live in a so-called left-behind town.

I am a lucky MP. I get to represent the constituency that includes not only the town where I grew up and still live, but two brilliant town centres: Wythenshawe and Sale. Both have the benefit of Greater Manchester’s Metrolink, which connects them to the rest of the conurbation.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Stockport, we have been campaigning for a long time for an extension of the Metrolink tram system into our town centre to increase footfall and trade in the town centre. I raised the matter with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who assured me that he would study the plans with care, but I never heard back from him. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest issues facing northern towns is the lack of ambition and investment from this Conservative Government?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He should be proud of his work in Stockport to regenerate the town. There is nothing quite like “Foodie Friday”, which attracts independent retailers and thousands of people, but we know that the cream on the cake for Stockport would be extending the Metrolink to the town centre. I fully back his campaign, even if the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has not got back to him yet.

Wythenshawe, designed by the visionary architect Barry Parker, with the support of Ernest and Shena Simon, once led the way as a suburban utopia. In 1930, their garden city vision saw tens of thousands of families from Manchester’s inner-city slums moved to well-built, spacious neighbourhoods and green surroundings. That saw Wythenshawe transformed from a handful of small villages at the turn of the 20th century to a settlement of 100,000 people by the 1960s. In December last year, I hosted the “Who Built Wythenshawe?” exhibition with Professor Michael Wood, a famous former resident, and the Town and Country Planning Association here in Westminster, showcasing Wythenshawe’s garden city heritage.

The current site of Wythenshawe town centre, or the Civic, as it is known locally, started life as a shopping centre in 1963, with Wythenshawe Forum—one of Manchester’s largest buildings at the time—and a swimming pool, theatre and public hall added later. I would visit the Civic most weekends growing up, shopping at the market, visiting the Forum theatre and, yes, having many of my first dates there as well. Today, it still attracts over 5 million visitors a year and sits at the heart of a community of over 100,000 people. Like many towns, Wythenshawe faces some challenges, with increased costs for businesses and changing retail and leisure demands, but with the right investment it has so much potential.

Sale, a former market town that grew on the back of the Bridgewater canal, which brought coal to fire the industrial revolution, has also experienced challenging times, but it has an exciting future. It was recently voted the fourth best town in England to live in. It has strong transport links and housing stock and great schools, including the one at which I had the pleasure of teaching for the best part of a decade. Recent regeneration by Trafford Council is seeing independent businesses return to the town centre, but more investment could take the transformation to the next level, attracting more businesses and creating jobs.

In the Summer of 2022, recognising the need to rejuvenate these town centres, Manchester City Council and Trafford Council, under the leadership of my friend the former Member for Stretford and Urmston, submitted bids to the levelling-up fund. The plan to redevelop Wythenshawe town centre offered a once-in-a-generation chance to transform the Civic with a new public square, food hall, community cinema and 1,500 low-carbon homes.

Manchester City Council bought out the lease on the shopping centre to help control, steer and accelerate that investment. It put its money where its mouth is. The plans for Sale town centre included a wholesale transformation of the public realm and highways, to improve active travel for all and support the regeneration of Stanley Square. I pay tribute to Altered Space for the private sector investment that has so fundamentally altered the precinct in Sale and brought about so much regeneration.

To ensure that the plans were fit for purpose and had the support of the local community, Trafford Council funded the refresh of the Sale public realm strategy, which set out and delivered a costed plan to inform the bid. The transformational potential of the plans and the golden opportunity for regeneration that they provide must not be underestimated, especially in a constituency where 41.3% of neighbourhoods rank in the highest category of deprivation. The plans were serious about levelling up.

Future of Social Housing

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend and north-western neighbour the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for securing this important debate. I know he is passionate about improving the provision of social housing in his constituency and across Britain.

Every single week my office is inundated with stories about scandalous rent hikes in the private sector, amounting to hundreds of pounds, and an ageing stock in the social sector, meaning damp and mould are rampant. Recent census data revealed that house prices in Stockport have risen by almost 50% in the last five years, compared with 20% in the rest of England and Wales. As a result, rents in the private sector are sky rocketing. Understandably, people are turning to an already oversubscribed social housing sector, where temporary and emergency accommodation is full.

Local housing allowance is dwarfed by the median rental value in the two broad market rental areas in my constituency, and with the Government’s consistent delay in abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, the security of tenure in the social sector is rightly and more understandably attractive. When the Chancellor announced his Budget last month, I was deeply disappointed that local authorities were not given the money to improve the housing stock, or the ability and finances to build more council houses.

I recently received an email from a woman living in social housing, who said that conditions were so bad that her one-year-old baby has

“had to stay with family as we have to protect her health. She was constantly coughing and had bad breathing”.

Another example is a mother who wrote to me following an accident that left her paralysed from the waist down. She is in a property that has no wheelchair access and so is bedbound. There are currently no suitable properties for the family.

In the last fortnight I met with Stockport Homes, which is the primary social housing provider in my constituency. The truth is that it is so much more than a social housing provider. Whether by providing food and mental health or employment support to its tenants, or by tackling antisocial behaviour in and around its properties, it regularly goes above and beyond. Take, for example, the work it does through its money advice team, which supported more than 2,000 customers to obtain additional income worth £7.2 million. Stockport Homes is truly an example of an excellent social service.

But when I met with representatives from Stockport Homes, they shared with me the utter despair that they feel, day in, day out, about their inability to provide suitable housing to the people who come through their doors, despite the excellent work and services they already offer. There are 7,000 households on the waiting list, 4,000 of which are in housing need of some kind. There has been an almost 30% increase in the number of homelessness inquiries from people currently in the private rented sector across the Stockport borough. A total of 569 properties have been reported as having damp, mould and condensation. If those figures are not shocking enough, in the last month a single studio flat received 325 bids. That means that 324 people missed out on securing one single-bed property, which demonstrates the exceptionally high demand in the Stockport constituency. I place on record my thanks to the chief executive, Helen McHale; the head of homelessness and rehousing, Jeff Binns; and all the staff at Stockport Homes who work so hard to provide for people in my constituency.

The Government must understand, though, that without addressing the inadequate finances and the much-needed upgrades to a significant portion of the stock, Stockport Homes will continue to struggle. The Government talk a good game on housing. The Secretary of State has previously publicly shamed failing social landlords, and the overdue renters reform Bill is coming, although it seems to be stuck in the pipeline. Beyond words and empty promises, what are the Government doing to ensure both that there is enough social housing provided and that the stock is of the highest quality, meeting the demands of tenants in Stockport and across Britain? I want to hear much more from the Minister on that.