Property Service Charges

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered property service charges.

It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell.

Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges.

Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink.

I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life.

Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was

“thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.”

His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says

“they basically cut the grass and insure the building”.

When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top.

Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says:

“Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this important debate—the fact that so many Members are present is an indication of its importance. In my constituency I have seen an increase in the number of people who bought their house or flat many years ago and are now facing difficulties with the level of charges, unexpected cost increases, and poor communication and service quality. Does she agree that a service charge can never be seen as a blank cheque for the owners, and that what those charges are spent on must be itemised and made clear?

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree.

To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

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

The hon. Lady highlights the problem of residents being charged late payment fees. I have a number of constituents who never received an original letter demanding payment, but who are then charged late payment fees despite not knowing a payment was due. Does she agree with me that the lack of communication is another critical issue that we must address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I completely agree that is very much an issue, as I have heard that too.

Alfie and Louise, sadly, are not alone. So many other people on Park 25 find themselves in the same situation: trapped, unable to sell and move on with their lives, and wishing they had never bought the property in the first place. Sam, another resident, said that

“it’s not an exaggeration to say this is ruining people’s lives”.

He has a wife and child and wants to have another, but he cannot move to a bigger property as he cannot sell this one. It is literally stopping them growing their family. He even tried selling his flat for £80,000 less than the valuation, and he still could not sell it due to the service charges. This is devastating for them as a family.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As a constituency MP, I have had some appalling experiences with FirstPort, at Oak Lodge in Hockley and at King Georges Court in Rayleigh. The latter is a four-storey McCarthy Stone development that it manages, where the lift was out of action for almost a year. Is not the fundamental problem with FirstPort that it is ultimately owned by several offshore venture capital companies that are very aggressive in seeking revenue from their tenants, but do not seem very willing to provide a decent quality of service in return?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full.

These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere.

The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount.

That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed.

It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

South Derbyshire district council has taken the bold and rather commendable decision to ban any new property management fees, and to backdate that to January 2025. However, that does not help those who already have homes they bought before 2025. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should press our Government to legislate to help those who are tied into these arrangements to come out of them?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. An important debate for us to have today is about what we do going forward, both for those who have not yet bought a leasehold and to help our constituents who are in this situation right now. I am really interested to hear everyone’s views on that.

These companies are a symptom of the problem; they are opportunists making money from an inequitable system. It is this House that must take responsibility for addressing the intrinsic unfairness and urgently make the changes needed to unshackle leaseholders. I hope that we will today hear hon. Members’ views on the solutions, not just the issues. We cannot keep building new housing estates under this same model, perpetuating the problem. This is increasingly important in the light of the Government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next few years. I have to say, if nothing has changed when the time comes for my children to purchase a property, I will be strongly advising them not to purchase a leasehold on a private estate.

To start us off, I will give the House my view. I think making it easier for leaseholders to change property service company is important, as is better regulation and higher standards, but that will not fundamentally transform the situation. What is needed—what is critical—is a change to the default model, so that homeowners are not paying both the council and a private company for the exact same services.

One sensible and equitable option would be that local authorities are obliged to adopt communal land and infrastructure on completion of new estates in all but the most exceptional cases. For that to work in practice, developers would need to be obliged to ensure that the infrastructure meets the council’s standards before transfer. That way, owners of leasehold properties would be put on an equal footing with everyone else, paying for communal services once through their council tax. That would certainly deal with future issues.

But what about those who, like our constituents, are already trapped? It may be that something more radical is needed, such as a mandatory direction to all local authorities to adopt communal land where requested by existing estates. It would be difficult, I know, in this current financial environment and with the likely variability of estate quality, but it would certainly address much of the issue and allow my constituents to sell their properties and move on with their lives.

I know that this Government are also keen to move forwards and towards commonhold arrangements, especially for flats, which essentially put management of the estate in the hands of leaseholders themselves. There are some benefits to commonhold over the current model, but it is not the silver bullet that is needed and brings its own set of problems. Anyone who, like me, has been involved in a residents’ association or similar organisation—or, indeed, who simply understands human nature—will know that most people do not want to pay out for significant works, so the works will not get done, which in time will result in crumbling roads, failing roofs and falling home values. Again, it will become difficult for residents to sell their properties. It is just another version of the same trap, and one that pits neighbours against each other. I urge the Government to think again on plans to make commonhold the default tenure for new build flats.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. I really think it is the radical solutions that we need to consider. I should probably declare an interest as a director of a right-to-manage company—we got so fed up with the freeholder failing to manage our building properly that we took back control. However, as she points out, that is not the end of the story, and we still need to get a lot of people to agree on a lot of things, and building up the reserve fund is particularly difficult. I encourage the hon. Lady to keep coming up with ideas that are bolder than the ones that are out there at the moment, because it is a sticky problem to fix.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for his encouragement and I will keep coming up with radical ideas.

Before I finish, I want to raise the issue of education and information provision to homebuyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they would not buy them—or they certainly would not pay as much for them. I am sure that conveyancers include warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it is not cutting through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up to, and we must do more to ensure that people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line.

I would be most grateful if the Minister could today give his view on a few things. How can we best address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies? What role does he see an industry regulator playing in driving up standards? What default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate his views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after development completion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating today. I also thank all Members for leaving politics at the door, on the whole. Everyone recognises that there is a challenge, we all agree that that challenge is impacting our constituents’ lives in a detrimental way, and I think everyone came here today to try to solve that, and I thank them for that.

I also thank the Minister, who has clearly listened closely to everything that was said today. I am grateful to him for taking this with the seriousness that it deserves. He has already contacted FirstPort—that is incredible and I thank him for it.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I think we can all agree that it was time well spent, and I am sure that the Committee will be happy with the number of hon. Members who were here to speak today.

In summary, we have heard some truly astounding things today. I am sure that we are all horrified by what some leaseholders have to endure. It is clear that some property service companies are exploiting leaseholders for their own benefit and profit. Some do not provide a value-for-money service, do not adequately maintain communal areas and are most certainly not transparent in their dealings. Their actions trap residents in homes they cannot afford and cannot sell, but the law of the land currently allows those companies to do that. It is a travesty and an absolute scandal. I look forward to the Minister and the Government acting quickly to prevent further abuse, and I will support them and cheer them on in that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered property service charges.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds.

First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres?

On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete.

I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster.

I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor.

Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddie Hughes was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate.

Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

In addition to my previous answer, my hon. Friend will have heard me talk about the importance of targeting resource at deprivation and need. I think that is the right approach to funding. It also goes a bit beyond funding, to power, which all communities can benefit from. Whether it is high street rental auctions, an enhanced community right to buy, local planning processes or local communities taking those opportunities to shape place, local authorities are important in that conversation. I know my hon. Friend is pushing his in that regard.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

T5. It has been estimated, and reported, that billions-worth of unspent community infrastructure levy may be available at local authority level for investment in critical infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that the money is invested in roads and drainage, so it can deliver the improvements that our residents deserve?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are legitimate reasons why developer contributions can be held by local authorities—for example, so that they can complete phased development, or bring forward other sites over a period of time—but we are aware that certain local authorities hold, in some cases, significant sums, and we are giving the matter some attention.

Pubs and Community Funding

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the time to debate Government community funding and support for local pubs. We are fortunate to have so many amazing pubs in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, and they are far more than just a place to have a pint. They are the heart and soul of our towns and villages, bringing people together and enriching daily life. They provide jobs and a sense of community, and they even support our local farmers and producers by selling their goods.

Sadly, we have lost many pubs in recent years, with ever-increasing costs and rising taxes pushing them to closure. Every loss is felt in the community, diminishing social cohesion and shrinking our local economy.

Pubs contributed more than £34.4 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and paid more than £17.4 billion in tax, despite the tight margins they operate on. Just as many households have struggled with high energy bills and inflation, so too have pubs, which are still feeling the residual effects of lockdowns during the pandemic and the change in consumer behaviour that came with them. They now face increased employer national insurance contributions and business rates on top of everything else.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who is quickly making a reputation for herself in the House as an assiduous MP, whether it be in Westminster Hall, Adjournment debates or last Friday—well done to her. Every one of her constituents should be proud of all her industrious work here.

Strangford and Ards have suffered greatly from the hospitality business downturn. To give one example, the Parlour Bar was built in 1735—it has been there a long time—but it is under pressure, like Romas and other pubs in Newtownards. Some 65% of hospitality businesses plan to reduce employment levels, risking job losses and impacting worker income; 55% intend to cancel planned investments; and 26% will cut trading hours due to the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions. Does she agree—I think everyone in the Chamber has the same opinion, and we look to the Minister for a good reply—that the Government and the Minister, with the sympathy and compassion he has for businesses, need to step up to ensure that those businesses survive beyond 2025, and perhaps for another 300 years?

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree with the hon. Member. It is really important that we support our pubs. We cannot continue the approach of squeezing them until the pips squeak. We will lose them, and once we do, we will never get them back.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

From next year, the Government will be permanently lowering business rates for retail and hospitality businesses. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be good if the Minister confirmed that that permanent lowering will be in relation to rates as they currently are rather than pre-covid rates or last year’s rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I would welcome any clarity from the Minister about that.

In Redhill, we have an amazing pub called the Garibaldi, which is a community pub—a not-for-profit pub—that gives back to the community in so many ways. On walking in, you feel the warmth straightaway from Shiv, Juliette and the other volunteers, who are always there to give a welcome with a smile. There is always something going on: quizzes, karaoke, Bhunnys street food—even a book club. My personal favourites are the forces fry-ups for veterans on a Saturday morning—sometimes I go along to help serve the tea, coffee and toast; I normally do it quite badly—and the music bingo. Out back, there is the community garden, which has been transformed with the help of the Garibaldi gardening group volunteers. It is now accessible to everyone, including young adults with special needs who visit with YMCA East Surrey.

Every bit of profit the Garibaldi makes gets ploughed back into things that benefit the community. It is there for the benefit of Redhill residents, not for any other reason, and it is extremely good at what it does. That is incredibly clear whenever I visit. People from all walks of life are sitting side by side with friends and neighbours enjoying a chat and a drink, all part of making the Garibaldi the special place that it is.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow. The Garibaldi sounds like an amazing pub. When she described how it reinvests its funds, it reminded me of the clubs in my constituency—perhaps clubs rather than pubs are more popular in the north-east. Does she agree that many of the things she has said about the community importance of pubs also apply to clubs such as the Hardwick social club in my constituency?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Absolutely, those things apply to clubs and to any premises where we might listen to live music —they apply to so many places. I will focus on pubs, but I hope that we will have many other debates on all those other things.

The Garibaldi has stood on Mill Street for 150 years. It has survived two world wars, multiple recessions and two global pandemics. It has seen Redhill transform around it into the modern, bustling town it is today, but it is now at risk if the funds cannot be raised to buy the building. Rather ironically, the pub is so much more than bricks and mortar, but it needs to buy the bricks and mortar if it is to survive. In previous years, the community ownership fund has provided a great opportunity for community groups to acquire community buildings. It has awarded more than £135 million to 409 projects across the UK, including several community pubs. Sadly, however, the fund is no longer available.

The new Government have announced their intention to introduce a new right to buy for important community assets. This will no doubt bring many benefits and help to preserve valued community buildings and spaces. It will empower communities to save much-loved pubs and community halls, rather than just having to accept their loss. However, in order for groups to utilise this to the full, I ask the Minister whether they have any plans to introduce a fund to support the purchase of valuable community assets by the community.

The Garibaldi is doing a sterling job of trying to raise the money itself, as I am sure many other groups around the country are doing, but it would be useful to know if there is any likelihood of new funding on the horizon that it could apply for to supplement its efforts. The Garibaldi is such an important part of Redhill—we cannot imagine Redhill without it—so I would be most grateful for any advice and support from the Minister on how we can secure it for future generations.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that some sort of community ownership fund is required. Does she agree that the companies that own the pubs that the community is seeking to buy need to look after the properties? In Chardstock, the George Inn Continuity Group is trying to buy the pub, but the Wellington Pub Company is allowing water in through the roof, which is completely unacceptable. Does she agree that the pub companies that own the pubs need to look after them?

[Rebecca Paul]

Obviously I do not know the details of that specific case, but I agree that we all have a collective responsibility to look after these important community assets. Before I bring my comments to a close, I would like to pay tribute to some other fantastic pubs in my constituency. I have quite a lot of them.

[Jayne Kirkham]

The hon. Member is talking about the resumption of the community ownership fund for pubs. Would the Minister consider other options, such as the British Business Bank, and look into how other funds could be used for this purpose?

[Rebecca Paul]

I, too, would be interested in the Minister’s response to that question.

I recently ran a campaign to find out which pubs were my constituents’ favourites, with the aim of reminding them of the pubs on their doorstep and the importance of supporting their local. The response has been phenomenal. It is clear that our pubs mean a lot to local people in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, and I am pleased to say that the results are now in. I am sure the Minister is on the edge of his seat wanting to know. Before I put him out of his misery, I want to let him know that he is very welcome indeed—as is anyone here this evening—to visit for a pint. The winner of best food and drink pub and best pub garden is the Well House Inn, a pub in Mugswell that I know very well. I can personally vouch for the delicious burgers, and I have a tendency to make sure I visit around lunchtime.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has given an account of all the different pubs in her constituency, but these kinds of stories are happening across the country. In my constituency, we have the Royal Oak pub in Chapel Ash, which does great charitable work. It has the Midland Freewheelers Blood Bikes, who provide a courier service to deliver blood for the NHS. That is all done through volunteers. They are having a charity event next month where motorcyclists, cyclists, runners and walkers will support the city and celebrate the parks, the streets and the people of Wolverhampton. Does she agree that our pubs are not just places where we eat, drink and have a good time, and that they also do a lot of great charitable work, even supporting the NHS, which we need so much?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

It is indeed impressive what the pub in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is doing, and I completely agree that pubs are so much more than just places where we buy food and drink. Any of us that have pubs like those in our constituency are very fortunate.

Going back to the Well House Inn, the amazing beer garden there is home to St Margaret’s well, which is reputedly mentioned in the Domesday Book. Those who are lucky may even catch sight of the resident ghost, Harry the monk, while enjoying a quiet pint of ale. The winner of best family pub is the Sportsman in Mogador, another excellent local pub. It was originally a hunting lodge for Henry VIII and is surrounded by the most beautiful heathland. Local residents very much enjoy a hike across the countryside to it with their dogs before enjoying a pint. It is also brilliant at supporting local businesses through its Christmas market every year.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, as she did on Friday; I want to acknowledge that in the House this evening. She talks about the wonderful pubs in her constituency of Reigate; may I mention the Albert, the Westbury Tavern, the Swan, the Boat and Horses, the Bush inn and the Sneyd Arms in Newcastle-under-Lyme? These are excellent public houses that all colleagues are most welcome to visit. I congratulate her on securing an excellent Adjournment debate; we are here to celebrate our pubs—in Reigate, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and up and down the country, including in Strangford. Today I launch the 2025 best pub in Newcastle-under-Lyme competition. Will she join me in encouraging all my constituents to vote in that competition, to celebrate the wonderful pubs in Newcastle-under-Lyme?

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Member makes me feel slightly less guilty for reeling off all the pubs in my constituency; now I am not alone in advertising all those amazing pubs. I absolutely encourage his constituents to vote in that competition, and to let him know what they love about their pubs.

I will go back to the winners, as I know Members want to know who they are. Lastly, and rather appropriately given the subject matter of the debate—I promise this is not a stitch-up; this is actually what the numbers said— I am pleased to say that the Garibaldi has won best overall pub and best community pub. I am sure from my speech that Members will understand why it is so special, and why so many residents have voted for it, so I will not wax lyrical any further, but I hope the Minister will support me, the volunteers and local residents in trying to save this gem for future generations. Again, I reiterate my invitation: he should pay a visit when he gets a break in his busy schedule. I would love to take him on a pub crawl.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Perhaps the best invitation he will get all week!

English Devolution and Local Government

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I encourage local authorities to respond to the consultation. We recognise that some will be disappointed that we have not taken their offer forward this time round. Some of them needed a bit more time and development, but we are absolutely committed to deliver that, because I want to see devolution across the whole of England.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving my constituents in Reigate and Banstead certainty over the timing of elections; however, many of them will be disappointed. One of my big concerns, which needs to be seriously considered, relates to debt. I am not against unitaries in principle; there are many benefits and advantages to them. However, I have great concerns about debt sitting in other district and borough councils for which my constituents may end up footing the bill. Please can she reassure me that my constituents will not be paying a bill that they did not incur?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes a fair comment, and I welcome her appreciation of the certainty that people need. We will continue to work with local areas. I understand that some areas have more debt than others. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will lead a debate later on the local government settlement. We know the difficulties that local councils have faced, and we will continue to have discussions to ensure that the hon. Member’s local area will not suffer detriment because of unitarisation. We want to see positivity for her local constituents.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee, and it is good to see many fellow members of the Committee in the House this afternoon. Before I start, I wish to pay tribute to the many excellent landlords across our country. The Bill has been designed to tackle the worst offenders, but it is worth putting on the record that thousands upon thousands of landlords do a good job of providing long-term accommodation for many people in the private rented sector. On Second Reading and in Committee we spoke about the unintended consequences that exist in the Bill, some of which still remain—that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about unintended consequences. Does she agree that it is important we consider our key workers, such as NHS staff and police, who rely on accommodation tied to their employment? With the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, it is important to ensure that provisions are there to support such tenancies, so that they can continue and we can retain and attract much-needed police officers and NHS staff.

[Rebecca Smith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that I do not believe have been put in deliberately but are something that we might see as a result of the Bill. Other issues include accidental landlords—those who did not intend to be landlords and are not large portfolio holders—and small landlords, and we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner about the challenge they face regarding economic drivers and the risk of the market shrinking. We talked a lot about that on Second Reading, but ultimately landlords are leaving the market, and if there are fewer homes for people to rent, we are in a worse situation.

I support new clause 20, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I believe a review of the Bill’s impact on the housing market after a year is important to ensure that we make it even better than it already is, and to address those unintended consequences. We can all agree that is important, given the challenges we have already heard about regarding the long housing waiting lists and the homelessness rife across our country. It is also important to listen to landlords.

In particular, I draw attention to some of the reasons why new clause 20 is so important. Plymouth Access to Housing, known as PATH, is a key player in tackling homelessness in my constituency, and it works especially with those who are harder to place into accommodation. It has rightly said that it supports the Bill in principle—as we have heard, the Opposition support large parts of it too—but in a buoyant private rental market. It is concerned that it is not buoyant, so there is already a challenge. That is why a review would be important. PATH also says that it has received funding in the past to support landlords to stay in the private rented sector. What plans does the Minister have, perhaps outside of this Bill, to ensure that such organisations, in which some Members present today have worked, might be able to mitigate the impact of some of those future challenges?

The South West Landlords Association, which I have mentioned, would benefit from new clause 20, because it would allow for an assessment of a provision that essentially amounts to a doubling of the amount of rent arrears that can be accrued and of the notice required for possession before a landlord can get somebody out of their property. Landlords are particularly concerned about that, for the financial reasons we have already set out. If they have to wait for three months of arrears and then another month’s notice before they can remove someone from their property when they have not been paying rent, that has a massive impact on small landlords, and on those accidental landlords in particular—that is nearly half a year of income they would lose. Ultimately, it is the luck of the draw. We do not know in advance how good tenants will be. If someone has an excellent tenant, it is not a problem, but with a bad tenant it is not so good.

Building Homes

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contrary to the crowing by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the Opposition’s record on home ownership, the rates are stagnant and they are particularly bad for the younger generation. We have a generation locked out of home ownership. We are taking action in that area, not least through our plans to take forward a comprehensive and permanent mortgage guarantee scheme. One of the largest contributory factors, although not the only one, at the heart of why housing is unaffordable, is our failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. Going forward, the framework will support our target of 1.5 million new homes.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

The Government have announced that housing targets for Reigate and Banstead will increase significantly. We will move from an advisory target of 644 houses per year to a mandatory and completely unrealistic target of 1,264—a 96% increase. A large proportion of my constituency is green belt. If all areas must play their part in building the homes we need, why is the Minister reducing housing targets for London and other urban areas, while increasing them in rural areas like mine?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made clear the point on urban areas and how the 20% increase across the board means we are asking more of all parts of the country. I say gently to the hon. Lady that she speaks as if there are no housing pressures in her constituency. People want homes in her constituency to rent or to buy as much as in any other part of the country. Yes, the targets are stretching but they are achievable, either through brownfield development from the release of low-quality grey-belt land within the green belt, or through cross-boundary strategic planning.