Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.

The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.

I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.

Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.

Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.

For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.

To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.

Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.

As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.

Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.

In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.

Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.

As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.

Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.

Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.

I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.

[Ruth Cadbury]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.

[John McDonnell]

You’ve got a canal.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.

I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.

West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.

I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.

The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.

The Government’s changes will give

“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.

The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will

“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”

by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]

It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.

A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.

As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure plans and ensure that they align with our ambitions around housing developments. Nowhere is the lack of public transport infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies such as mine, where we have my thriving town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but we had no buses after 7 pm or on a Sunday, until now. Thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 pm and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. Does she agree that we must not wait 10 years for such excellent news? We must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.

The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.

Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were

“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,

and that the Government

“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that

“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,

and that

“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],

but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister to wind up.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough]

That is another issue that I know the Minister, who is new to his place, will address in his remarks.

The second issue that I want to raise is exploitation. A longer route to settlement may embolden bad employers. We already know that there are 40,000 people in limbo in the social care sector because of exploitative bosses and visa sponsorship pressures. Extending the pathway risks increasing the vulnerability of workers who are already contributing to our society. I therefore ask the Minister: has any assessment been carried out of the workplace impact of these proposals?

The third issue is contribution. These are skilled workers; we invited them here because we need their skills. They are in work, paying tax, helping our economy, staffing our hospitals, caring for our elderly and carrying out world-leading research. In my constituency of South Norfolk, skilled workers at the Norwich research park are engaged in science that could revolutionise food security and tackle the climate crisis. At Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, I saw a board listing dozens of nationalities represented in the workforce—it looked like a roll-call of the United Nations—and yet these staff, who are giving so much, have no access to public funds. They pay the immigration health surcharge of £1,000 a year and support our economy, but carry their own costs. That is the reality that we must recognise. My question to the Minister is whether the Government have conducted an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes to the skilled worker pathway.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech, and I thank those who secured the debate. Many of my constituents are highly skilled. They often work in IT. Some do not intend to stay and may well go home, but those who have written to me have told me what it means for them. It is not just about their current job; they see themselves contributing in the long term through their skilled jobs and perhaps making a career, climbing up the career ladder and becoming managers and leaders in their field. This decision appears to make that possibility very uncertain. How do HR managers feel about this decision when they are recruiting skilled people from overseas?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank my hon. Friend. The important thing is not just the here and now, but the future. We always need to legislate for the future, not just for now.

I turn to the second petition, which is about the Hong Kong BNOs. The moral case is overwhelming. We must remember why this scheme exists: it was created in response to Beijing’s national security law, when freedoms and rights of Hongkongers were crushed. People fled oppression. They came here trusting Britain to keep its word. Some of those who are now living in our country have spoken out against the Chinese Government. Going back to Hong Kong is unthinkable for them.

Colleagues should be under no illusion about what people are fleeing. In mainland China, repression is systematic. We have seen the incarceration of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims, the silencing of dissent and the routine use of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens. In Hong Kong, which was once one of Asia’s freest societies, we have seen the steady erosion of rights that were guaranteed by international treaty. We have seen freedom of the press strangled, freedom of assembly banned, civil society dismantled piece by piece, journalists jailed, students arrested and opposition politicians barred from office or driven into exile—all this in a place where people used to enjoy liberties similar to our own.

Leasehold Reform

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leasehold reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. This is a well-subscribed debate, but as it is only half an hour I have said that just a couple of hon. Members can intervene, and hon. Members understand that we are not accepting any speeches apart from mine and the Minister’s.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate on leasehold reform in England and Wales, one of many that I have already spoken in during this Parliament. I want to start by thanking the dozens of constituents who have written to me in the last week to let me know about the problems they have faced: high service charges, rising building insurance, safety problems, unclear management contracts and a wall of silence from their management companies and freeholders. Most of those issues have been raised with me by leaseholders in my constituency since I was first elected to this place 10 years ago.

The common theme, as hon. Members know, is a lack of control. Many leaseholders assume, when they sign their contracts, that they are moving into a home. They have to pay a service charge, but they expect that to mean that communal problems will be fixed and they will be able to get on with their lives. Sadly, that is not the case.

Many leaseholders are trapped in a complex, legalistic maze. I want to cover three things today: the situation for my constituents, how we got here, and how the Government are working to fix it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate, which I spoke to her about beforehand. Does she agree that issues with developers and management company rates can stem from the fact that the new homebuyers are often not informed about the nature of the leasehold agreements and the additional costs that come off the back of that for labour and materials? Does she therefore agree that estate agents and solicitors must have a duty of care to ensure that prospective owners are under no illusions as to how management companies and associated fees will be dealt with annually?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, because I was going to come on to that and to the insidious links between those selling the flats, particularly the developers, and the solicitors who they recommend to the buyers—often first-time buyers who are unaware of the challenges.

On how we got here, the answer, to be blunt, is greed. Hedge funds, investors, solicitors and developers—many based overseas—started meeting up at conferences about 15 or so years ago to learn how to use the weaknesses in English freehold law to fatten the golden goose. Members can see my rant on this subject on the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website. Leasehold blocks of flats, often in urban areas, were valuable properties that guaranteed an extremely high return.

In one current case a freeholder called Oakdene, which is refusing to pay to fix fire safety faults, sent me a letter from a solicitor at a rather high-priced legal firm—the letter alone probably cost hundreds.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I have been working with some residents in Cavalier Way in Wincanton. They contributed £40,000 annually to Plymouth Block Management, their previous leasehold management company, which did not complete any repairs and deposited no reserves as it was transferred to the new company. The residents now have a 500% increase in their charges. Does the hon. Member agree that companies must be accountable to residents and mandated to hold annual general meetings to ensure financial transparency?

[Ruth Cadbury]

A lack of transparency is a theme that comes up again and again, particularly for the people who are effectively the victims. I will press on because I want to get to the end of my speech if I can.

The complex state of leasehold means that many different parties have realised that they can fatten the goose with ease, and often without scrutiny and enforcement as the hon. Member has said. First, that was often done through ground rent. Properties would often charge a ground rent of between £250 and £1,000 a year in London. I would call it money for old rope, but that would insult old rope.

That tactic was later replaced as more buyers and solicitors became aware of it, particularly around the sale of flats, so we then saw service charges being used as the new cash cow. A typical building in my constituency, which is often a flat built since 2000, has a service charge of £6,000, but some have charges as high as £7,000 or £8,000 without anything like that value of service being delivered.

For too long, it has been possible to raise service charges without limit—often vastly above inflation and with no clear breakdown. Leaseholders will buy a property and think that the service charge is paying for services such as—to take examples from my constituency—the post room, receptionist, home cinema, car park and security. In fact, they find that the post room and the home cinema are closed, the receptionist is not full time, the car park gets flooded and the security is non-existent.

If a person bought such a product on the open market, trading standards would have a field day—but leasehold is not a fair market. If we invented this market system now with its wide cast of cowboys and profit strippers, it would appear like something out of a Victorian novel. Ted Heath called it the “unacceptable face of capitalism”, but that is how we have got here.

I will not regale the House with the efforts to tame and reform leasehold over the past decade. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I know that many hon. Members have been working on it. The previous Government’s changes were welcome, and MPs from both sides of the House have stood up, spoken and acted, particularly thanks to the support of the APPG and the work of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign. I know that the Minister gets this issue and knows it inside out too.

I want to talk about my constituents’ experiences. For many people in west London, the high cost of property means that buying a house is out of reach, but people on good salaries can, just about, afford a flat for upwards of £500,000.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this incredibly important debate. One of the issues in my constituency, which is very similar to hers, is that people are buying new flats or houses under the freehold system, but with so many covenants involved that they are also being charged the sort of service charges that she has mentioned. Does she agree that whatever the Government do— I welcome the good approaches in this place—they must also cover some of the covenant issues around freehold?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I agree with the right hon. Member. There are so many issues that the Government have been looking at, and are going to have to look at, particularly to ensure against unintended consequences.

With prices of upwards of half a million, even with the help of the bank of mum and dad, many of my constituents have no choice but to buy a leasehold flat, even when they have a good income and perhaps help with the deposit. That means that a whole generation in London risks getting trapped as leaseholders.

The key problem is that at first the terms can seem straightforward. A person pays their mortgage and then they pay their service charge and ground rent, and for the first year, it might be okay. They might notice some problems in the communal area, but the real kicker comes when they get the first increase in their service charge. I have seen constituents whose service charge has increased by 50% or even 100%.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about leasehold we have to include fleecehold as well? In Priory Vale and St Andrews in my constituency, residents pay astronomical fees without receiving the services that they should receive for such fleecehold charges.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again and again, bills for service charges come in that are not properly itemised. There are items that do not actually exist, such as landscaping maintenance, and there is a refusal to open up. Some leaseholders are even getting charged by solicitors for what should be a right.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such service charges are an outrage? There should be some form of guarantee associated with what services are in fact provided. I, too, have had many constituents complain to me about the complete lack of services that they pay for. As she says, if those services were something that was being paid for on the open market, trading standards officers would be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the Minister is noting these points and will address how we can ensure transparency and a minimum quality of standards in the billing of service charges and the other activities of management companies.

I now want to get to the end of my speech. Given the popularity—sadly—of this debate, I hope that there will be many more debates on it in this place where everybody will be able to make a strong speech about these issues that are so important to many of our constituents.

I will give some examples from constituents. In one case, a constituent was rightly concerned about the costs they faced and asked for a breakdown of them, but was refused. They issued the necessary legal action to get the breakdown, but six months later they are still waiting for it. There is also the specific problem that many constituents are frankly outgunned when they get into legal disputes. Another constituent faces a legal bill in the thousands because they have to represent themselves.

One Hounslow resident who lives in a badly converted office block summarises the issue well:

“Our building’s service charges and insurance costs average just over £2,000 per flat annually”—

which sounds all right—

“yet the quality of service is alarmingly poor. We have regular incidents of theft, with leaseholders having to rely on personal security measures”.

They say that is because the management company are not interested. They continue:

“The service charges increase each year with little transparency, covering inflated management fees, audit fees, and security charges, with no consultation with leaseholders on providers or costs. This imbalance of control leaves us vulnerable to arbitrary charges without accountability.”

On top of ever-rising service charges, many people have also faced sky-high building insurance costs since the Grenfell tragedy. In one case, council leaseholders saw an increase in their costs of more than 500%. People who get the right to manage by setting up resident management organisations have the right to hire and fire managing agents, and to get rid of companies such as FirstPort, but that has not always been plain sailing. I hope that the Minister will address the issue of minimum standards for managing agents when he responds to this debate.

When my constituents try to sell their flats, they often find out the major problems with leasehold: either the asking price has decreased due to the ground rent or service charges or—even worse—banks will not lend on their flats. When one of my constituents inherited a property, they found out that there was only 40 years left on the lease. They can extend the lease, but they have been told that doing so would cost a six-figure sum. They told me that

“the only future I can see is that of a bleak one.”

Another constituent wrote to tell me how, despite paying a record-high service charge, their lift is constantly broken down. At one point, excrement fell from a broken pipe through the lift shaft for a rather long time. I will leave Members to picture that scene.

Another problem was raised by the resident of the converted office block who I quoted earlier. They said that

“we have faced significant distress from ongoing attempts by our building’s freeholder to add two additional floors to our development. While Hounslow Council initially rejected the application due to objections raised by the leaseholders,”

the decision was overturned on appeal. That was on the basis that the project was

“aligning with wider housing targets, but disregarding the wellbeing and concerns of existing leaseholders. This decision now leaves us anticipating extensive disruption, with no realistic recourse or meaningful consultation. Put a little more colloquially, imagine if some UK millionaire had the right to build two additional storeys above your home!”

Many local residents are trapped and unable to sell their homes because of the web that leasehold has left them in. I hope the Minister can address that, as I know that the Government are working on it. Whether it is capping ground rent, reforming service charges or making lease extensions easier and cheaper, we need to fix the blockage for those trying to sell.

There are also problems for those who bought via Help to Buy. I have heard that the single provider that runs the service is still very slow in responding about valuations and about the other hoops that those who used Help to Buy have to go through when selling their property.

Finally, I will move on to the Government reforms. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who have promised to end leasehold. However, I know that it cannot be done overnight. How is the Minister’s Department ensuring that fire safety reforms and leasehold issues go hand in hand? Constituents tell me that fire safety remediation work at developers’ cost via the developers’ building safety pledge is being done only to the mortgage lenders’ B1 standard, rather than the A standards delivered when using the Government’s building safety fund. The former not only pay high higher insurance charges but, if selling, do so at a massive discount, thus creating one of the two-tier splits in leasehold housing.

That touches on another two-tier system that many leaseholders are worried about. The Government rightly plan to end new leasehold ownership, but what will happen to the 5 million existing leaseholders when that change happens? Will they get any retrospective benefit? In London, the gap between house and flat prices is already increasing rapidly, and I fear that we risk leaving many of my constituents with an asset that they cannot sell.

The Government rightly have an ambitious housing target, and I want us to build more affordable homes. I am, however, worried that in London we will see more homes being built that are purely shared ownership, where the tenant-leaseholder part rents and part owns the flat but is liable for 100% of the costs. I am extremely sceptical of that business model as I have seen example after example where shared ownership looks attractive, but the service charge rockets, the rents surge and, when people try to staircase up or even sell, they face many problems. Shared ownership has a role, although I suggest that the name is a tad misleading. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the new homes being built do not simply create a new generation of trapped leaseholders?

In conclusion, our leasehold system is an antique relic. It has left 5 million people trapped and now they are unsure of their future.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill. When I studied for my planning diploma, I learned that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the power of national strategic policy versus the challenge of local politics in planning approvals has waxed and waned. It felt under the previous Government as though national powers over significant development decisions almost disappeared, and MPs of the Government party effectively pressured the then Secretary of State to refuse much-needed infrastructure developments that included new housing developments, prisons and more. There has to be a balance. The national Government have to be able to deliver on their national strategies. This is what the Bill does.

I particularly welcome specific parts of the Bill. It fosters more certainty for critical national infrastructure such as electricity—that is so important, as we heard earlier in the Heathrow statement—clean energy, roads, public transport, water and sewerage. I welcome the certainty of decision making for planning applications, more effective land assembly through improving the compulsory purchase orders process and bringing back development corporations, and the return of effective spatial development strategies. The Bill will enable the Government to reform the planning system to deliver on growth, new housing, cutting carbon emissions and climate change resilience—all of which the UK badly needs.

As an MP in London where buying a home or even renting is out of reach to most young people, I welcome the Government’s focus on delivering the 1.5 million new homes that are needed. The Bill and the excellent national planning policy framework enable new housing developments to no longer be designed with entrenched car dependence. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to ensure that new housing and other developments can be concentrated in locations with good public transport, so that schools, shops, health centres, parks and open spaces are easily reachable without the need to drive. This ensures access for all, not only those who have a car. It ensures access to jobs, education, training and shops—all essential building blocks for growth across the country.

[Munira Wilson]

My constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. I agree with her about building homes in areas that are accessible by public transport. Does she agree that the Government should be encouraged to ensure that where the public sector is selling off land and buildings—disused police stations, fire stations or other public sector buildings—it should be allowed to sell below market value, and should be encouraged to do so to enable more affordable housing and social housing in constituencies like mine and hers, where there just is not the land to build on?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My constituency neighbour makes a good point, but she must remember that due to 15 years of austerity, many of those sales were the only way that public sector institutions could deliver the new services that were so badly needed.

The Mayor of London and councils such as Hounslow are working with the Labour Government on several key transport links, including the west London orbital, which will unlock thousands of new homes. However, the Bill alone will not unlock the housing and infrastructure projects that the country so urgently needs, so I ask the Secretary of State—or the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is still present—to address the other causes of delay and uncertainty that we are seeing in the system. The community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements on, say, new bus routes, must be adequate, timely and sustainable, so that people are not moving into estates to then become dependent on having a car. Providing two buses a day for a couple of years, some time after tens or even hundreds of homes have been occupied, is not building in sustainable transport.

My second point is about new joint public-private developments. The hybrid Bill process, as was used for High Speed 2, took years and still did not deliver detailed plans for the routes. It then got mired in lengthy legal processes over the details. The chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission told our Transport Committee how France and Spain delivered new high-speed rail in a fraction of the time, without it being mired in public opposition and legal challenges. It has taken far too long to deliver even half of the original HS2 project. I therefore hope that the Government will come up with a more streamlined process for such major national projects.

Thirdly, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with the Chancellor on different public-private funding mechanisms that other equivalent economies have long used to develop transport infrastructure, social and affordable housing and other public services, so that they are no longer held back due to historic Treasury orthodoxies on capital expenditure.

Fourthly, the Housing Minister will be aware of the additional delays faced by developers of tall blocks of flats. They have planning permission but are being delayed in gateways 2 and 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The legislation itself may not be the problem, but the building safety regulator processes certainly are. A development of more than 400 homes in my constituency has been stuck for over a year, with no certainty about if and when they will go ahead. Obviously, my last three points are not within the scope of the Bill, but they are relevant to the aspirations of this Labour Government to get Britain building, which the Bill will deliver.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

It is absolutely right that we look at all options, and I am happy for the right hon. Gentleman to take that matter up with the safety Minister as well. We want to continue to support the community, who have been through so much. I visited the site and met the headteacher of the school; children who were not even born when the tragedy happened are still suffering the effects of the trauma today. We are committed to supporting the community, the bereaved and the survivors for as long as it takes.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her response to the report on the Grenfell tragedy. Flats in a large leasehold block in my constituency were given a B2 EWS1 certificate by Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire Ltd. He and Tri Fire are now being investigated for potential malpractice by the Institution of Fire Engineers. One of my constituents, a leaseholder in that block, told me that they do not know whether their certificates are valid, or whether their problems can be remediated through the building safety fund. They do not even know whether their block still has a safety issue, and that is quite apart from the fact that those needing to move cannot sell because mortgage lenders will not lend. How and when can leaseholders such as my constituents get the assurances they need, including the assurance that no more fire inspectors will be allowed to get away with what Adam Kiziak did?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question, and I am sorry about the situation that her constituents find themselves in. I understand that the relevant professional body is investigating that case, and it would be wrong of me to comment on the specifics, but we are working to encourage mortgage lenders to act proportionately, in order to provide support to leaseholders and buyers in buildings with EWS1 certificates that mortgage lenders are not accepting. Where a building is in a remediation scheme or the leaseholder is protected by the Building Safety Act 2022, we expect the 10 lenders that have signed the industry cladding statement to honour that statement and not require the EWS1. If my hon. Friend wants to speak to the safety Minister about that case, I am sure he would be happy to meet her.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing the Bill forward. We heard from her and from other hon. Members about the difficulties that voters in Scotland and Wales face due to the fact that, following the passage of the Elections Act 2022, the equivalent powers were not introduced for England and Wales.

I have been campaigning in elections since 1979. I hugely enjoy the interaction with voters, despite being shouted at occasionally. It is so important. We are linking their concerns for their communities and their families with our role as actual or potential elected representatives. The bit that gels all that together is the process of voting. The process of voting needs to be made as simple, easy and accessible as possible to everybody, so that everyone has equal access.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s report demonstrates that only 50% of blind and partially sighted people were satisfied with their experience of voting at the last general election. Does she hope, as I do, that the Bill will make the process smoother, make it easier for people to apply for absent votes, and make some much-needed improvement on that figure?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I know that the RNIB has campaigned for many years to improve accessibility to elections for people with sight loss. I do not know whether this Bill will actually make the change that my hon. Friend desires, because it brings the Scottish and Welsh systems up to the standard that we have in England, and I know that the RNIB is not yet satisfied with the process. If people have chosen not to have a postal vote, a lot depends on whether the polling clerks at the election centre feel confident enough to help those with sight loss to vote if they do not want to do so with a family member, neighbour or friend.

I have stood as a candidate in 11 elections, and I have won every one of them. I have also campaigned in many more general elections, council elections, by-elections and London Assembly elections, and I have helped colleagues in by-elections across the country. When I first started, there was no such thing as online voter registration—in fact, there was no online anything. I attended statistics classes at university, and computing then involved stacks and stacks of cards—I do not know how many Members remember that. It took another 15 years, roughly, for most of us to understand what the internet was. It has only been since 2023, I think, that one can register online for a postal or proxy vote. We cannot underestimate the importance of being able to register for a postal or proxy vote with ease.

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about accessibility and the need for proxy votes. I did some research on this issue prior to today, and I discussed with a constituent the difficulty that people with autistic spectrum disorder experience when voting. They have a lot of anxiety about going into polling stations and the potential complications that they face when making sure that they are able to exercise their democratic voice. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do everything we can to support those with autistic spectrum disorder, to make voting as accessible as possible?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. Many neurodiverse people find the process of voting difficult, and that is one example of why postal voting is so valuable to so many people.

Up until 2001, one needed approval from either a doctor or an employer to be able to get a postal vote. People could not just say that they would prefer, or would find it easier, to vote at home; they had to justify that, which was easier said than done. There were huge discrepancies in whether doctors could sign off such a request, and in whether employers were prepared to say that an employee would be away and unable to vote in person on election day. We have seen a huge improvement. Only 2% of voters had postal votes before the change, but the figure had grown to almost 20% by the time of the 2010 general election. We have, over the years, made postal voting easier.

The variation is quite high: 50% of voters in Sunderland vote by post, while only 8% of voters in Lewisham do so. The most important thing of all—and why postal votes make such a difference to engagement in our democracy—is that 80% of people who have a postal vote use it. Would we not like that kind of overall voter turnout? That is hugely important.

[Euan Stainbank]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about turnout. Does she agree that although there may be multiple reasons why someone might not choose to come out and vote, ease in accessing a ballot should never be one of them?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree. That is why voters in Wales and Scotland need equality of access with voters in England, and I hope that the Government will support the Bill. In 2023, the then Government launched online voting applications for postal and proxy voting. If I have read the explanatory notes correctly, that is the discrepancy that the Bill is set to address.

We do not knock on doors only at elections—of course, we cannot get anybody to sign up for postal votes for the next election during the short campaign period. Most of us, and I hope all of us on the Labour Benches, are door knocking week in, week out, not just for the next election—and sometimes not even for the next election—but because, as elected representatives and community and party activists, we need and want to engage with our communities. Part of that conversation is, “I find it difficult to vote,” “I can’t vote,” or, “I missed the last vote because of this.” That is where we ask, “Well, what about a postal vote?”

[Steve Race]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the Bill will benefit the older voters we speak to on the doorstep, many of whom are digital natives and actively use online technology? Older voters in Scotland and Wales would, I am sure, like to use technology in the same way as older voters in England.

[Ruth Cadbury]

That is absolutely right. We must listen to older voters’ needs. Some are digitally excluded, which is why it is always a good idea to have paper copies of the form to give them, and to tell them what they need to do to get that application off. Others are not digitally excluded and, like my mother, have smartphones and do more and more things online. One thing that we have been doing, as I am sure have many colleagues, is having a QR code to hand, so that voters can put their phone over the QR code, which immediately opens up the form. Then, we say, “Goodbye and thank you very much”—we obviously do not have anything to do with their completion of the form. That makes it easier.

The problem with handing over a form or saying, “I suggest you go on the Government website,” is that, with the best will in the world, many people really do want to apply for a postal vote but life gets in the way, as it does for us all. Applying is not the most important thing when, say, the baby is crying, dinner is about to burn, or someone is late for work. We have found in England that the easier the technology, the more people apply for postal votes. As I have just said, if they have applied for and got that postal vote, they are more likely to use it. A lot of what I am saying also applies to proxy votes.

[Patricia Ferguson]

It was said earlier that the fact that last year’s general election occurred during the Scottish school holidays meant that, in the chaos and confusion that happens in most households preparing to go on holiday, voting fell off the agenda for a lot of people who had perhaps thought about applying for a postal vote but not got around to doing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, were another election like that to be called, the opportunity to do that chore by post might make a difference to a lot of people?

[Ruth Cadbury]

We were all aware and deeply conscious of how many Scottish voters were disadvantaged in the July 2024 election. As Scottish summer holidays start some weeks earlier than in England, many Scottish voters were disenfranchised. The Bill in itself will not change that, but like a broken record, I go back to the point that the easier we make applying for postal and proxy votes, the more people will do it, not when an election is imminent but at some point well before that. Then they will not be disenfranchised.

The Bill will make life a lot easier for electoral registration officers in Wales and Scotland, who have a terrible time dealing with two different sets of elections. Scottish and Welsh voters are able to apply for general election votes in the same way as English voters, but for some reason—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—a different application form is needed for the different levels of election, such as the Scottish Parliament election versus the UK general election.

[Dr Arthur]

It is more confusing than that. It is actually the same form with several different options, which explains the different scenarios. I recently applied for a postal vote, because there is a by-election in my constituency next week, and it is not a straightforward process. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is even more confusing than having two separate forms?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just confusing for the voter; it is more difficult for the already stressed-out EROs. They have a difficult enough job, they often do not have enough colleagues with them, and if they do not do their job absolutely perfectly, there is the potential for mistakes to be made, which becomes challengeable. I endorse the Bill, because apart from anything else I want to make sure that every voter in every area gets an equal chance to apply for and get a postal vote or a proxy vote.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on initiating this high-quality debate. It has been an honour to hear the many contributions that have been made.

New homes must be built with the years 2030, 2040 and 2050 in mind, not the year 2000, and I am glad that the national planning policy framework has been drafted in the context of the wider climate crisis, so that planning decisions on new homes apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. I look forward to the sunshine that the Minister will bring at the end of the debate, along with, I hope, more details about supplementing the NPPF.

The domestic installation of solar panels has had a rough history in the UK since 2010. The previous Labour Government adopted zero-carbon homes regulations, but they were watered down in 2010 and largely scrapped in 2015. One million new homes have been built since 2010, most of them with minimal standards for water and energy efficiency. Sooner or later those, along with all the much older homes, will have to be retrofitted.

All our constituents really care about the climate crisis. It is one of the most common topics in my mailbox; it is raised by children in schools, and by grandparents at residents’ meetings. Yesterday evening I attended a meeting of Osterley and Wyke Green residents’ association in my constituency, where we discussed solar panels. Many residents who live in conservation areas want to be able to install solar panels on their south-facing roofs where they face the road, and have asked me to see whether that is an issue of supplementary guidance or of national planning policy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am afraid that the time to go into it is not available to me, but I would mention the Government’s intention to revise viability guidance this year to strengthen the section 106 developer contributions system rather than implementing the infrastructure levy that the previous Government devised. In lots of different respects, this Government are absolutely ensuring that developers are held to the commitments they make, and, as she will know, we gave significant weight to the benefits of renewable and low-carbon energy proposals more generally in the NPPF.

As I was saying, maintaining consistency with the established direction of travel is vital. There is a history of environmental standards being committed to and then withdrawn by previous Governments, which has understandably left industry reluctant to invest in preparing for new standards. However, since its announcement in 2019, the future homes standard has become a world-recognised framework, giving industry time to develop the necessary supply chains, skills and construction practices, and many developers are already building to higher standards in anticipation of its roll-out. Introducing conflicting legislation at this stage could create significant confusion and risks reversing the confidence and momentum that we have worked hard to establish.

Let me reassure the House that it is our firm intention to legislate for future standards later this year, as I have made clear, and to increase rooftop solar deployment significantly as a result. I understand that hon. Members and industry will need more details about what the standards will entail before they can arrive at a judgment as to their efficacy. Although we need to take the necessary time to get that right, my intention is to set out further details as soon as I am able—in the not-too-distant future, I hope.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I understand that 1.5 million Germans live in flats that have solar panels on their balconies. Will the Minister consider that as an option, in both new and retrofitted housing, as he looks at this important work?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, we will set out further details on the new standards in the not-too-distant future.

I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for introducing this commendable Bill. Although the Government cannot support it for the reasons that I have given, we very much agree with the sentiment and ambition that have motivated it, and I recognise and appreciate all the dedicated work that I know he has put into it. For that reason, and assuming that he is willing, I would very much welcome an ongoing dialogue with him as the Government progress our work on the new standards, so that he has an opportunity to build on the important contribution that he has made in introducing this legislation, and to work closely with me and my officials prior to the introduction of our legislation so that his work and the views he has developed are properly incorporated and taken into account. On that basis, and given the widespread consensus on the objectives of the Bill, I hope that he will not seek to divide the House on its Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

We are clear that dangerous buildings need to be remediated. That is why the best thing that any building owner can do is get into a scheme today to unlock the funding and meet those duties they have as building owners. When they do that and when they are approved for the grant, they would have an inspection at that point, so I am surprised to hear that dangerous defects would be locked in, as the hon. Lady says, but I am interested in having a conversation with her to understand that further.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T3. A block of 50 flats in my constituency was built by the public sector 60 years ago and has now been found to have a major structural fault that will cost over £1 million to fix. The flat owners are also shared freeholders of the block and cannot afford the cost of the repair or to sell their flats. As it is an unusual situation, will the Minister meet me and the resident owners to consider a way forward before the situation gets critical?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, of course. The issue of cladding defects is exceptionally important and, indeed, the subject of a debate later today, but so are non-cladding defects and protecting leaseholders from their impacts.

Employment Rights Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my membership of the GMB. I support this landmark employment Bill, the biggest expansion of workers’ rights for a generation. Today we see the difference that a Labour Government can make for people up and down the country.

Although I support all aspects of the Bill, I will focus specifically on the transport sector. During and following the covid pandemic, transport workers faced the short end of the stick of poor employment practice. I welcome the end of fire and rehire. That unfair practice was used as a sledgehammer against workers, particularly during the pandemic, by companies such as British Airways, which tried it on more than 35,000 staff members, including many of my constituents in Hounslow. BA staff who had worked for decades faced the prospect of being sacked and rehired on poorer pay and weaker terms and conditions.

After huge pressure from trade unions, Labour MPs and the Transport Committee, BA dropped its plans, but other firms such as P&O have also exploited the weakness in UK employment law that the Bill is intended to address. Those practices are still happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) highlighted in his intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. When workers were facing fire and rehire, Labour was clear that a Labour Government would ban that practice, and I am pleased the Government are doing that. I welcome clause 22.

On minimum service levels, the Bill will also repeal and scrap the previous Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023—a farcical bit of legislation designed to limit strike action. In Committee, when I pushed the rail operators on the proposed legislation, it was clear that they had not sought it and they appeared to have no plans to use it. The fact that so few rail operators chose to use the powers once they were enacted showed that the companies themselves doubted their value and use.

This Bill also brings in much-needed modernisation of our maritime laws. In the last Parliament, the then Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business and Trade Committee—one Conservative, one Labour—jointly wrote to the then Government about the need to update our laws to protect maritime workers. I welcome the Bill’s closure of the loophole whereby ships registered overseas previously did not have to inform the UK Government of collective redundancies, and the fact that this Government have committed to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea.

In conclusion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Shivani Raja to make her maiden speech.

Inter Faith Network for the UK

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I sought to secure this debate to be an advocate for the great work of the Inter Faith Network, which feels more important and more necessary than ever before, but also to be clear with the Government that the network faces imminent closure if they do not deliver on their July 2023 commitment to continue to provide funding.

Here in the UK, we are a religiously diverse country. The Inter Faith Network was founded in 1987 as a way to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain, including an awareness of both their distinctive features and their common ground, and to promote good relations between people of different faiths in this country. I do not think anyone could find fault with that.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I am a big fan of Hounslow Friends of Faith because of the work it has done to bring communities together—particularly at times of heightened community tensions that affect our communities—but also its other activities, such as a public health video on suicide prevention. Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of our local Friends of Faith or equivalent organisations is only possible because there is a robust national organisation that supports them in their work?

[Holly Lynch]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I join her in paying tribute to Hounslow Friends of Faith. She has shared a really powerful example of where faith communities can work together to deliver truly beneficial projects and initiatives that go deep into communities, perhaps in ways that other statutory agencies cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I do not think I can give way, because I think I have about 57 seconds left before the end of the debate.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Sign the cheque!

[Simon Hoare]

I have neither chequebook nor pen to hand.

Let me say, in closing, that the work of the network is understood and the importance of that work is very clear. The network is not the only body that provides forums and organisations to deliver inter-community and inter-faith discussions. There are others, but we hope to be able to make an announcement in due course.

Question put and agreed to.