Leasehold Reform

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nigel Evans

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.

Free Sanitary Products in Schools

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nigel Evans

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. This is about more than just schools and more than just one part of the UK.

My focus today is on education, but this issue has much wider implications. It is vital that free period products are available in all sorts of venues and facilities, from leisure centres and community spaces to workplaces and further education colleges—in fact, anywhere where there are likely to be people on low incomes who might be caught short and need access.

Scotland led the way last month by passing a Bill that will ensure that free period products are available in all public places. It was moved by Labour’s Monica Lennon MSP, but supported by all parties and passed with no opposition. In Monica’s recent speech in the Scottish Parliament, she was absolutely right to say that the passage of that Bill showed that Parliament could be a force for good. She said:

“Our prize is the opportunity to consign period poverty to history. In these dark times, we can bring light and hope to the world”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 November 2020; c. 76.]

As chair of the APPG, I am looking forward to having Monica speak at our next meeting and seeing how something similar could be brought in in England.

In England, following the success of the Red Box schemes and campaigners, the Government finally brought in a scheme to introduce free period products to schools, which was rolled out in January. The schools have to ask to get access to the scheme. Our concern was that if there was insufficient take-up by schools, the funding would be pulled and the scheme would end, so we have been encouraging Members to contact their schools about this. It is not often I say that I am pleased with this Government lately, but I am really pleased that, last night, they announced that the scheme would be extended through the full 2021 calendar year. That is very welcome.

As I said, the scheme is being taken up by schools across the country, including many in my constituency. I know from speaking to young people that it has made a huge difference and they really appreciate it. There are fundamental reasons why the scheme is so important. We know what it is like to be in a toilet where there is no paper. Having no pad or tampon to hand when your period arrives is the same feeling. Of course, it is far worse for young people without the cash to buy them.

We need to ensure that any such free period product scheme has three key attributes: we need to remove the stigma around period products; we need to remove the postcode lottery that has meant that people have relied on charities and even teaching staff to provide free products—they should be available in all schools; and, most importantly, we need to ensure that no student misses out on time in the classroom because they have their period but no menstrual protection.

A 2019 report found that half of those who said they had missed schooling because of their period had done so because they could not afford to pay for period products. I am concerned that the coronavirus is fuelling this inequality even further. The problem might now be even greater, as the new figures coming in show that the pandemic has plunged more families into poverty. We know that we have a serious problem in this country when UNICEF is funding work here.

An important part of the scheme—and, indeed, of this whole debate—is tackling stigma and making it not only okay but perfectly acceptable and normal to discuss issues relating to periods. I am glad that this place has got much better in recent years, although I found out that the words “tampon” or “sanitary towel” were not used here until May 1987—and that was in relation airport security. Despite the title of this debate, Paula Sherriff reminded me today that we should not be using the word “sanitary”. Let us get away from the idea that menstrual products and menstruation implies uncleanliness; having a period is not dirty or unsanitary, although without protection it is messy.

Let me address the uptake of the Government’s free period products scheme in schools. The figures show us that by August only 40% of schools had signed up; will the Minister tell us the current level of take-up? In response to a written question, the Minister said,

“we are continuing to monitor orders closely”,

so I hope she will be able to provide further information. It is so important that schools sign up, which they can do so easily by going to the Free Periods website, which has a useful guide and toolkit to help schools. It also offers help on how to lobby MPs and on how MPs can encourage their local schools to take up the scheme. I have been working hard to make the scheme available in local schools, as have my colleagues, but MPs can do so much more.

Funding into next year would be much appreciated, but I have some other requests of the Government. It should not be left to charities such as Free Periods to do the heavy lifting in promoting the scheme when the Department for Education has a much louder megaphone to use. I know that the Department says:

“We intend to publish positive stories from organisations that have benefitted from the scheme”,

but I would like to know what the Government have been doing beyond that. What urgent work has been and is being done to promote the scheme directly in schools?

It has been such a tough year for schools and staff, and heads have had more than enough to deal with, so the easier take-up is made, the better. When I met one local headteacher, she told me about the difficulty they had in understanding the reams of directives that arrive every week; let us make it easier so that this is not yet another hurdle they have to jump. I hope the Minister will take that back to the Department.

As we end this year, I wish to speak about the future of the scheme. I hope the Minister will outline in further detail the plans for next year. Will the same amount of funding be available as was available for this past year? If schools do not use all their allocated funding by the end of the year, will they be able to roll it over and use it in future? The success of the scheme rests on as many schools as possible signing up to it. When the scheme was launched, the Minister responsible at the time, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who is now the Minister for Universities, said that the Government would consider making the scheme mandatory if take-up was not high enough. What level of take-up does the Minister think is acceptable? Does the Department have any plans to make it an opt-out rather than opt-in scheme?

Will the Government draw on our Red Box experience in Hounslow and consider extending the scheme to include other products, such as pants and tights? They are particularly valuable, because it is one thing to have a clean pad or tampon, but another to have to put back on the same pants and tights. That is certainly what the volunteers in our Red Box scheme put in, because of the feedback from students and schools. I hope that when the Minister gives her response, she will set out what the plans for the scheme are and what changes there will be.

While I congratulate the Government on their decision to continue the scheme, it is certainly not the end of the issue of access to free period products generally, as I have said. As the Scottish example shows, there are other venues and places where people, particularly those with no money or very little money, get help and support, such as food banks, citizens advice bureaux and those who support refugees. I have often visited these sorts of projects and places and they are wonderful people doing wonderful things—they provide food, they often provide razors and they provide toys for children—but sometimes they do not provide period products. I think that that needs to be considered because, as I say, period products are as necessary as food to eat and toilet paper.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, as this is the official end of the parliamentary year, I wish you and your team, all the staff of Parliament, who support us, all our parliamentary staff and other Members here—those who are left—a happy, peaceful and restful Christmas. Here is hoping that 2021 is a happier year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Ruth.

Global Britain

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nigel Evans

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could the Minister please stop trying to change my words? I was talking about visitors’ visas for business people.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair; indeed, it was not even made to the Chair.