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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

No, because I need to make progress. Perhaps I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene a little later.

The key factor here is choice. At present, leaseholders do not have a choice, or they have a fake choice. The Bill will give them a genuine choice when it comes to how they manage and own their homes. However, while I warmly welcome these measures, we can and must go further. May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister to a few of my suggestions?

The measures in the Bill will clearly be of enormous benefit to individual leaseholders, making it easier and cheaper for them to buy freeholds or extend leases, but of course this is a very complicated area, and I know it will be difficult for many leaseholders to understand exactly how much they will benefit financially. My first suggestion, therefore, is the provision of an easy-to-use digital calculator enabling people to see what the Bill means for them.

Then there is the issue of commonhold fixes. I know that the focus here is on ensuring that leaseholders cannot be exploited and can take control of their homes, but there is a clear Conservative and free-market rationale for accepting the Law Commission’s recommendations on reforming commonhold so that more developers choose it, rather than leasehold, for new blocks of flats—not because they are forced to do so, but because it is the best option for their business model. Can the Government look at that again? All the work has already been done.

I strongly welcome the Government’s consultation on capping ground rents. As I said in an intervention earlier, the Secretary of State must look at who is making the representations, and bear in mind the old adage, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” when people oppose such caps. We know that ground rents are sheer exploitation. Let us call a spade a spade: this is money for nothing. Can the Minister assure me that there will be time to get a cap into the Bill once the consultation has closed?

We have all heard of too many sad cases involving a hard core of truly exploitative and dodgy freeholders—the bad apples—ripping off and exploiting leaseholders. We know that there are some freeholders who treat people properly, but the others know that going to court will be too much hassle for most people, and indeed that the odd tribunal defeat is just part of the cost of doing business. We must do something to ensure that there is a real cost to those unscrupulous companies and their directors.

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

I thank the hon. Member for the work that she has been doing on this issue. However, she implies that the rip-off merchants constitute only a certain proportion of freeholders. Is she not aware that these people have been working in cahoots over the past 10 years, attending conferences, identifying the weaknesses in the law, sharing information and forming links with professionals such as agents and solicitors in order to rip off innocent leaseholders? This is a consistent, organised scam that has been growing over 10 years, which is why there are so many more problems now than there were, say, 15 or 20 years ago.

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I am aware of that. When I was privileged to hold the position of Housing Minister, I strongly supported the relevant legislation, because those people sat in front of me and cried crocodile tears, telling me that if we went ahead with it we would destabilise the pensions industry and leave lots of little old ladies with no pensions—which is obviously complete and utter nonsense, as I am sure the Secretary of State and the current Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will be able to tell me on the basis of the analysis that they have conducted.

We also need assurances about section 24 managers. I note that, in recent weeks, at least one freeholder has tried to wrest control of a building back from a court-appointed manager—a so-called section 24 manager—claiming that it is incompatible with the Building Safety Act 2022. That is obviously nonsense. If a freeholder has been found not to be managing his building properly, it shows some cheek to try to ditch a court appointee on such spurious grounds. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity later to give us the Government’s view.

I welcome the Government’s intention of introducing building safety measures to ensure that remediation continues to accelerate, and to make it easier to ensure that the right people pay, but may I press the Minister for a little more detail? I know that, even as we speak, people are making serious decisions about their own finances.

My constituents in Brockhill, especially those in the Persimmon Homes development, have faced innumerable issues relating to freehold estates, and I must press the Minister on what measures he will introduce to help them and, most importantly, when he will do so. I know that the Government intend to introduce a right to manage for freeholders, and to challenge arrangements and charges through the first-tier property tribunal. However, I urge him to read again the Hansard report of the Westminster Hall debate in which I responded, on behalf of the Government, to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who had told a story about one of his constituents who had had to pay thousands of pounds for one lamp post. This is an outrageous state of affairs, and I want the Government to introduce measures that will tackle it and many others. Currently, throughout the country, people’s new dream homes are turning out to be a nightmare. They are being ripped off by small-print clauses that turn into big bills, and they have no redress. That must be fixed.

Finally, there is a need for regulation of the property management sector more broadly. I recognise that the Bill was not the right vehicle for it, but I urge the Minister to continue to push ahead with a reform that must happen, if not on this side of a general election, then on the other side.

We Conservatives believe that the opportunity to own one’s home is sacrosanct, and the Bill takes another important stride towards the creation of a true property-owning democracy. While, as we have made clear, we stand firmly on the side of fairness and those who want to own a home, we are still none the wiser when it comes to where Labour Members stand. One week they are on the side of the builders, not the blockers—or so they say. The next week, they are blocking our proposals to build 100,000 new homes that first-time buyers and young families would desperately want to possess. While they decide whose side they are on, we are taking important steps to improve the lives of millions up and down the country. I look forward to working with Ministers on the Bill as it goes through the House to strengthen some of its measures, particularly those on commonhold and freehold estates, and to ensure that we deliver on the promise that it holds.

Let me end by wishing my hon. Friend the Minister better luck than I had in his tenure of this important role. I especially hope that he can remain to finish the vital job of leasehold and freehold reform and restore true property ownership to millions. He will have my full support in the Lobbies.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill and to follow so many excellent contributions from Members across the House. They have all provided examples, most of which I have experienced in my eight and a half years in this place.

For years and years, leaseholders, campaigners and groups such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership have been warning the Government about the huge harm being done by our outdated, feudal and antique leasehold system. Many of us have raised it in this House. Problems with leaseholds is one of the biggest issues brought to me by constituents, and I am sure if the Minister joined me in meeting residents of just one or two blocks in my constituency, whether it was Great West Quarter in Brentford, Grove House in Isleworth or Wheatstone House in Chiswick, he would see the wide array of problems caused by the leasehold system.

We have had nearly four years of promises from successive Conservative Housing Ministers and Secretaries of State to commit definitely to leasehold reform. The Government have talked a good game but failed to deliver the big comprehensive package of reforms needed. This piece of legislation is yet another example of that failure.

This was supposed to be the grand reforming Bill from the grand reforming Secretary of State, who is not currently in his place. He has become the Conservatives’ Mr Fix-It. He was sent in to fix the justice system and then the Cabinet Office, and even to deliver the parting blow to the former Prime Minister. When he was presented with the leasehold system, there was a glimmer of hope that the Government would slay the vested interests and finally fix this antique system—but no, the right hon. Member has flinched. He has failed, because before us today we see a timid and narrow Bill that does not go anywhere near far enough to fix the problems faced by leaseholders.

Most new homes in my constituency are flats, not houses, so although ending the sale of leasehold houses is welcome overall, it will not help my constituents and the millions across the country who are still living in, or face the prospect of living in, leasehold flats. If the House will indulge me, I will give a typical example of why the leasehold system is outdated and just what the legislation should be addressing.

Imagine someone in their early 30s on the career ladder in a reasonably well-paid job. They have saved up for years, often while stuck in private rentals. They finally have enough for a mortgage, and they can just about afford the monthly repayment rates. They look across west London and cannot afford to buy a house, but they then see a glossy advert for a flat. At first glance, it looks perfect. They have worked out that they can get a mortgage and use their deposit to get a foot on the ladder. It looks as if their salary can pay the mortgage and the service charge, so they buy and assume that they have a stake in the home that they now own.

Too often, they are kept in the dark by solicitors who are often recommended by developers. They move in and the problems start. They notice a few problems: the promised concierge might not be there; the gym on the brochure never opens; rubbish is left in the hallways; the car park barrier and the door from the car park into the flats are often broken, creating a security hazard; and heating and hot water stop working for weeks on end. They report those issues, but nothing happens. Then, they get their service charge bill in the post: it has increased to more than £7,000 a year, over 50% more than what they were told they would be spending.

One constituent has seen a trebling of their service charge since they bought their flat in 2017, but while the service charge goes up, the services get worse. Leaseholders feel that they are treated like cash cows. Then they are hit with an increase in their building insurance: what was £200 a year is now £400, £500 or more. They ask why those costs have gone up, but they do not receive a specific or clear answer. Many are faced with having to sell, sometimes at a loss.

If they were lured into shared ownership, managed by housing associations, they face additional problems. The part-buy/part-rent set-up is supposed to be targeted at keyworkers in the public sector, many of whom are on fixed pay. On top of the mortgage and service charges, those so-called owners—they are not really owners, are they?—find out that their rent is going up. In many cases, my constituents in shared ownership have seen rent increases of 6%, 7% or 8%. They only own 20% or 25%, and if they need to sell, they have to sell through their housing association, unless they are in the fortunate position of being able to step up and own the lease outright. A report that I read said that many housing associations drag their feet on resales as there is not much money to make from them. They focus their energy on getting the new blocks sold.

I have heard from many constituents who are shared owners. They wait months and months to sell, and have to pay for costly valuations, while they are trapped in limbo trying to get on with their lives. Many of my constituents who are leaseholders are also unable to sell because they are waiting for remediation work to begin on blocks deemed to be unsafe. Much of that emerged following the tragedy at Grenfell. Banks will still not approve mortgages for those blocks until the work is carried out, which means that, again, those leaseholders are trapped in limbo.

In one case in my constituency, Galliard Homes has delayed and delayed taking any action, despite promises that it would start months ago. Leaseholders in blocks below 12 metres are still responsible for funding building safety fixes. They were carved out and left to deal with the crisis themselves. For one of my constituents, that means a £20,000 bill hanging over their head. The building safety crisis is a wider symptom of the building culture that the leasehold system encouraged; a system in which a small number of people and companies are able to make huge profits, with absolutely zero oversight of the build quality.

Let me move on to repairs. The residents of Wheatstone House in Chiswick, which is managed by L&Q, face an example of poor repairs services. Leaseholders and tenants in that block have known their hot water and heating not to work for days on end. That started last winter and is back again this winter. Each time, residents get a lacklustre and slow response from L&Q. We saw a repeat of such poor service when Peabody-Catalyst dragged its feet for months in fixing the lift at Aplin Way in Isleworth, trapping some residents upstairs. The developer then tried to leave leaseholders with a huge bill. Others have district heating systems that run at 35% efficiency but cost a lot of money. What does the legislation do to address those issues?

On service charges, management companies have their cake and eat it. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the excess charges, increases well above inflation, deteriorating service and opaque bills. Management companies are often too closely aligned by ownership with the freeholders. The same names keep coming up: Rendall & Rittner and FirstPort appear to be hoovering up the management contracts for a range of blocks, including housing association, shared ownership and resident management companies, all the while providing an appalling service to the leaseholders.

On declining value and the need to extend leases, constituents have told me about how they worry about their future if they have less than 80 years left on their lease. I do not think that the Bill does enough to address that challenge.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has said that a Labour Government would go further and ensure that everyone who wanted to move from leasehold to commonhold would be able to do so. A Labour Government will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties, and will carry out the Law Commission’s recommendations—I welcome that. Labour will also address the omission on deferment rates. We will do what the Conservatives have failed to do.

I have touched on only some of the many and varied issues that my leaseholder constituents have faced. The legislation does not go far enough for them and will not fix the problems that they face. It will not help those who are stuck in limbo and unable to sell, it will not help those who were tricked into shared ownership with false promises, and it will not prevent yet more leaseholders from having their lives turned upside down. When someone is handed their first set of keys, it should be a day of dreams, but for so many of my constituents and millions of people across the country, that dream has turned into a nightmare. The Government had a chance to end that nightmare through this piece of legislation, but they have failed to do so.

Leasehold Reform

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has been a long day.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Oh, it has, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a long week—and it is only Tuesday.

It is over six years since I first spoke about the issues facing leaseholders in this House, and these issues have only got worse for so many of my constituents. They are compounded, of course, by the consequences of the fire safety scandal that the Grenfell fire exposed. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many of the issues that provide a significant proportion of our casework and take up the time of our staff. I particularly thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for the advice and support it have given us and our constituents.

Reform is needed because, for so many living in my constituency, leasehold is the only way that most first-time buyers can get a foot on the housing ladder: 50% of all residential property purchases in London in 2021 were leasehold. The huge deposit and mortgage needed for a traditional two-up, two-down house in London, particularly in my west London constituency, coupled with the spike in mortgage costs, have now made it virtually impossible for families to buy a freehold home. This means that middle-income people and even those who many would call high-income people are pushed into buying a leasehold flat. Some young people—including many NHS workers, teachers and many more—can just about afford to go into shared ownership, but in my experience that is a particularly perverse form of leasehold.

Imagine how it must feel for a young couple, who have worked hard and saved up, when they buy their first flat. They get the keys and they are filled with joy, but then the problems first appear. They notice some antisocial behaviour, and they notice the failure of the managing agent to ensure the car park is properly secure. They report it, but nothing happens. Then they get a bill for the service charge, and it has more than doubled, plus it is not itemised. They are already struggling with the cost of the weekly shop, and then they are hit with another charge. They ask why the service charge has gone up, especially when standards in their block remain so low, and they do not get an answer. Then they find out that, in six months’ time, their share of the building insurance will go up not by 10% or 50%, but by over 200%. Where are they supposed to find this money? Imagine how it would feel with this constant hammer blow after hammer blow, and the dream of home ownership rapidly turning into a nightmare.

What I have described is one example from my constituency, but the many examples show that the central thread running through the existing leasehold system is the lack of power for leaseholders—the David against Goliath nature of the battle. Just last week, I met leaseholders in Aplin Way in Isleworth, who are facing an astronomical bill to replace the lifts in their block. It is 50 years old, so the lifts do need replacing. They have asked why it is costing so much when cheaper options are available, but they have not had a clear answer from, in this case, the housing association that owns the block. Their ward councillor, Tony Louki, and I have tried to seek answers, but even we have not had replies to our correspondence. After no response had been received, suddenly last week the contractors appeared on site. The leaseholders know they will soon be forced to pay their share of the astronomical bill, and this is causing particular stress to the many pensioners who own their own home in that block.

Being a leaseholder in this country is increasingly like trying to push an ever larger boulder up an ever steeper hill. The central point of frustration is the fact that leaseholders are being ripped off. They are paying eye-watering amounts every year, yet in many cases they do not know where the money is going. There is no transparency.

One particular case is at APT Parkview in Brentford, where there is a mix of leaseholders and tenants of the building owner. Leaseholders have seen their communal services keep rising in price, but then suddenly stop after they made complaints about their bills. One day there was no concierge, the gym was closed, there was no cleaning of the common parts and no security in the car park, but then there was a sudden extra charge for air conditioning on top of their existing rising energy bills. The case of APT Parkview has also shown the lack of enforcement action available to protect leaseholders. The council could not help, the powers of the ward councillors are limited, and when I wrote letters and raised the issues on the Floor of this House, they were still not resolved. The tenants in the block sought legal advice, and it appears that they have somewhat stronger rights than the leaseholders.

Another frequent offender in my constituency, although it is an issue across the country, has been FirstPort—it has been mentioned today. It regularly hiked up building insurance and service charges while ignoring the complaints and concerns that residents had about communal areas. Often it did not carry out the services for which people were supposed to be paying. Liam Spender, a committed campaigner on leasehold reform, recently took FirstPort to tribunal and won. David beat Goliath, and FirstPort had to pay back at least £479,000 in overpaid service charges to all leaseholders in the block. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, such problems have been compounded by the fallout from the Grenfell fire and the Government’s foot-dragging on that issue.

With leasehold, one never owns one’s own home but merely has the right to occupy it, and to sell that right for the remainder of the lease. It is not ideal, but historically it was a stable, normal type of home ownership that provided homes for many millions of people. Over the last no more than 20 years, we have seen the growth of what can only be called scams on the leasehold system, effectively monetising that system for profit, often offshore profit. Such scams include the extensive sale of freehold houses, extortionate service charges, the ground rent scandal, and developers selling the freehold from under leasehold flat owners, who were promised when their bought the lease that they would have the chance to buy that freehold. Then there are the close and unethical links between developers, freeholders, solicitors and managing agents. Scammers held conferences to network and share best—perhaps I should say worst—practice on how to exploit the glaring gaps in our leasehold system. We can plug some of the gaps, particularly for the benefit of existing leaseholders, but the only way to stop future exploitation is to replace private leasehold with commonhold.

The Secretary of State promised to reform leasehold and called it an

“unfair form of property ownership”.

Those of us speaking today agree with that, but where are the widespread reforms? Have plans been watered down by the Prime Minister? If so, that is no surprise from a Prime Minister who is out of touch with the reality facing leaseholders across the country, who does not understand the strain and stresses facing ordinary hard-working people who are trying to keep their home, and who is out of touch about the very country he is apparently running.

I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) have committed that a Labour Government would do what the Conservatives are too weak and out of touch to do, which is end the sale of new private leasehold houses, grant residents greater power over the management of their own home, and crack down on unfair fees, with the right to challenge those rip-off fees. I am pleased that Labour has committed to the Law Commission’s recommendations to make it easier to convert leasehold to commonhold, because for so many of my constituents, leasehold has turned into fleecehold.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, have many constituents who are leaseholders and who are stuck in limbo and facing astronomical bills through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, developers such as Galliard have refused to sign the Government’s latest pledge. What is the Secretary of State doing to fix that aspect of the building safety crisis?

[Michael Gove]

Applying a vice-like grip to their nether regions.

Building Safety

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Flammable cladding and fire safety issues are not the only building safety concerns that affect the residents of blocks, particularly those built since the post-2010 bonfire of red tape. What is the Secretary of State doing to protect leaseholders and residents in blocks that have non-fire-related safety issues?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of the things I announced last week was new support, initially for Greater Manchester and the west midlands, to make safe a variety of safety issues in social housing in particular. We all have the horrific death of Awaab Ishak in our mind and on our conscience. More work is required on building safety, and I gently say that I do not believe there is a material difference in our post-2010 approach to this important issue, but I do believe this Government should have acted earlier to learn the lessons of the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

I cannot promise a positive outcome at this stage. All bids are under consideration, but there will be an outcome before the end of the month.

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

Over a million households and growing have real housing needs. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Minister’s Department has seen the largest proportional reduction across Government in post-2025 spending plans. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is adequate funding for social housing?

[Lucy Frazer]

The Government have an £11.5-billion fund to ensure that we have affordable housing.