Employment Rights Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. This is the start of a process. There are a number of consultations, such as for the self-employed and on a single category of worker, and they will continue, because some of these things are more complex than what we can deliver in this Bill. But I say to my hon. Friend and to other Members: please come to this in the spirit of what we want, which is to improve working people’s lives. As I have said, many employers already go above and beyond what we are saying in this Bill. I hope we can start to celebrate those employers who do so and to spread that across the economy.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I join others in celebrating this Bill and what it represents? My right hon. Friend talks about employers who are already going above and beyond. Frankly, they get it that, out there in the real world, supporting families is good for the economy and good for growth; that includes dads, who we all recognise have responsibilities. What more can she tell us about that spirit of openness in the Bill and the opportunities to look at parental leave, particularly paternity leave? What more can we do to help more families to take it up and get longer?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We all agree across the House that families play an important role, that businesses can help to support families, whatever size or shape they are, and that we must go much further to make that happen.

The Bill goes further by making it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work during a six-month period after they return, except in certain specific circumstances. For women in work, we will not stop there. Eight out of 10 menopausal women are in work. For most, there is no support. When workplaces fail to support women, we fail in our moral duty to treat people equally, and employers lose out on talent and skills. On pay, too, we are failing women. The national gender pay gap still stands at over 14% and is not narrowing fast enough, so we will be requiring action plans for large employers to address the pay gap and support women during the menopause.

It is a sad reality that women often find the workplace uncomfortable and unsafe. Sexual harassment at work can destroy confidence and ruin careers. We will do everything in our power to tackle it. The Bill will strengthen the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment of employees, and it will strengthen protections for whistleblowers by making it explicit that if they do the right thing and speak up about sexual harassment, the law will protect them.

Through this Bill, the party of maternity pay and of the Equal Pay Act 1970 will introduce the next generation of rights for working women. Central to all these reforms is our belief that all employers should always support their employees. The best ones already do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a proud member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, I am delighted with the legislation. In the short time available to me, I will focus on the particular issue of whether we work to live, or we live to work, because so far the debate in this place, particularly in the remarks made by Conservative Members, has sounded like something from the mesozoic era and the dying era of the dinosaurs.

Let us get something straight: tackling sexual harassment in the workforce is not about free speech, but about stopping a crime; flexible working does not mean people work less, just that they work flexibly; and rights do not make people irresponsible employees, any more than it is noticeable that our competitors internationally are ahead of us on this work. The measures in the Bill are about entrenching good practice, so that we have a race to the top, not a flounder to the bottom, as we did under the previous Government.

That is why I and others hope to push the Government to go further on maternity and paternity rights. It vital that the Bill contains protections for mothers around maternity discrimination, but such measures will only work if we include the other 50% and bring dads into the equation. We do not really have a gender pay gap in this country any more: we have a motherhood pay gap and a motherhood penalty. Women face the discrimination of being made unemployed not only when they have children but because they might have children, and women who have kids find that when they go back to work, they are considered to be less committed, capable and competent. Women who are childless are six times more likely to be recommended for a job and eight times more likely to be recommended for a promotion.

The issue cuts the other way too, because there is a fatherhood premium as fathers are considered to be more reliable employees. We must not entrench these inequalities but overturn them, so that dads can be part of their kids’ lives and mums can get a fair crack at being in the workforce. A third of dads in this country take no paternity leave at all; half of them say that is because they feel pressured financially to go back to work early. Modern employers get the problem and are offering more than the statutory minimum. Some 92% of fathers who are job hunting say flexibility makes all the difference when they choose which job to take. After the pandemic, the number of stay-at-home dads increased by a third. Frankly, dads want to step up to the plate, whatever Members on the Conservative Benches may think, and mothers want them to be there too.

Making such changes matters to the economy. The loss of productivity that comes from women caring for their parents or their children means that millions are being cut out of our economy. We have some of the longest working hours for dads in Europe, and some of the shortest working opportunities for mums. Putting in measures to support paternity leave will be good for both sides of the equation. Let us not be the generation in which dads say they never got the chance to know their teenage kids, and mums say they never got the opportunities they wanted. Let us amend the Bill to ensure paternity leave matches maternity—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. That has been at the forefront of our minds, and not just in our work on this Bill. Hon. Members will recall that it is only a few weeks since we had the report on phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry, so when we talk about providing housing, it is at the forefront of my mind that houses have to be safe for people. It is absolutely scandalous that here in Britain at the moment we cannot guarantee that, and I will do everything I can as Secretary of State to fix that problem.

Talking about families more widely, we will also end the abhorrent practice of denying a family a home purely because they receive benefits or have children, by making it illegal for landlords and letting agents to discriminate against tenants on that basis. This Bill is about social justice and fairness for all.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the many families in Walthamstow who have been in exactly that position. One of the things that drives my constituents mad is having to move repeatedly because of rent increases that they cannot afford, because it means that their good credit rating stops and starts, which makes it harder for them to get on the housing ladder. What more can we do to tackle this discrimination against tenants and give them a chance of owning a home in the future, by tackling this basic issue of credit ratings, perhaps with a good credit passport?

[Angela Rayner]

This is a wider issue to do with the poverty trap that so many people face this country. I am also proud to plug the employment Bill that will be coming forward this week. It is another incredibly important part of this Government’s agenda; the Prime Minister mentioned it earlier today. We want to make sure that the working people of this country feel better off, and are able to get on and do the things in life that we should expect anyone to be able to do—things that we were able to do as a result of the toils of the generations before us.

I want to talk database. Part 2 of the Bill will introduce a new online private rented sector database, to the benefit of landlords and tenants alike. Landlords will need to provide key information about the properties they let out, including around property standards and compliance with the law, helping tenants to understand more about the property and the landlord who they are looking to rent from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate all Members who have given their maiden speeches today, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for all his hard work on this Bill.

If I am honest, I am disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), is not still with us—looking at the faces of Conservative Members, she appears to be unexpectedly busy—because she seemed to argue that the challenge that the Government are creating is to intervene poorly in a market. In the limited time available to me, I want to take on the challenge that she created, because I am not sure that she actually understands what this market is. That may well show in Conservative members’ voting if they think they are voting for somebody who understand market economics.

Let us look at what we are talking about. In my constituency, we have had the biggest growth in affordable housing in London, yet we have also had a 55% increase in homelessness. This is not a healthy market where there is effective competition, and where every participant has the tools to operate equally. Let me try to explain through some of the stories from my constituency. My constituent Kate, who works in the NHS on a nurse’s salary, has had to move every single year, because landlords are selling properties and putting up prices. That is not healthy—it is an overheated market. It means that the state picks up the pieces, through the salaries we need to pay and to deal with the consequences for her and her family.

My constituent Claire, who is self-employed, started renting her home for £1,750 a month in November 2019, and it had increased by £200 by 2023. She has now been threatened with another £400 a month raise, putting her total rent up to £2,350 for the same property within five years. What powers do my constituents have in that market, apart from to exit? That is not a healthy, functioning market.

We are seeing mould in properties, so the quality of goods in this market is not good enough. Emily, a mum from Walthamstow, was scrubbing mould from the walls of her three-month-old son’s room every single day. She eventually walked out because she found mould on the underside of her son’s cot mattress. But she was afraid to complain because she was afraid of section 21 eviction powers, so she does not even have the voice of exiting the market. Albert Hirschman would be horrified. We have to end the scandal of no-fault evictions, and we have to deal with the mould.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

Of course I will let the hon. Gentleman in. If he is going to make a declaration of interest, obviously I will let him intervene.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent and valid points, but does she agree that the London borough of Waltham Forest should ensure that its residents who are homeless—our heart goes out to those people—are cared for and looked after in Waltham Forest? At the moment, her borough council is sending her homeless constituents to the London borough of Havering. They are living in Harefield Manor in Romford. Surely Waltham Forest should look after its homeless people in its own borough.

[Ms Creasy]

I know that the Conservative party is about to go down a rabbit hole about immigration, but honestly, moving people from Walthamstow to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is not the challenge here. We have a broken rental market where the rights of renters do not allow them to compete fairly.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman another example so that I can explain the problem. The reason we need to tackle bidding wars is that there is a straight-out conflict of interest affecting the consumer. How can the person who represents them to the landlord also represent them fairly in a rental agreement? It is little wonder that Catherine, one of my constituents, found that she had to offer £300 over the asking price to secure a flat in a bidding auction. That is why people from Walthamstow are being moved out, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to think about sorting that market out, rather than trying to build a blockade on the A406.

Discrimination against single parents is widespread in the market, by definition because of what happens when households need to rent property. Ruth, in my constituency, is a single mum with two young children. She was told by agents, “Don’t even bother applying.” She could pay the rent and she was entitled to housing, but she was not even entitled to compete in this market.

In the final minute I have, I want to make a plea to the Minister about the credit rating of those in our private rented sector. It is not true that renting in the private sector automatically damages someone’s ability to get a mortgage, but if they are having to move time and again, their credit rating clock goes back to the start because lenders look at their addresses, they have to re-register for all their utility bills and they have to keep building up their good record. That gets taken into account by some lenders. People are finding that this affects other forms of credit, including the credit cards that many of them are using to pay their bills. In my constituency, the average percentage of people’s income spent on rent is 44%. If they have kids and are trying to pay for childcare, it does not take a rocket scientist or Ayn Rand to realise that this market is not working for them.

I believe we could do more if we came up with a good credit score passport to help those constituents of mine and others, who are paying their bills but who have been evicted through no fault of their own, not to lose their precious good credit rating. I hope the Minister will be willing to listen to some ideas about how we can do that with the companies.

Thank goodness for this legislation. It is long overdue, because tackling unfair markets is absolutely what good co-operators like myself and good people who care about social justice wish to do, and I shall vote wholeheartedly for it as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member raises a good point about rogue landlords. Let us reflect on some of the complaints that we have heard. Ant infestations, widespread evidence of mould causing health problems, the dilapidation of communal areas, a prohibition on tenants seeking to rent while on benefits and a failure to comply with licensing laws—just some of the complaints made by the tenants of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), but they are widely represented across the market. They are the reason we need to get enforcement action against rogue landlords such as that Member right.

On enforcement, the Secretary of State said in opening the debate that she is keen to ensure that there is an effective fining regime so that those who breach the rules can be held to account. We in the Opposition have a genuine concern about getting that right. There are a number of different areas of local authority activity in which enforcement is essentially a net cost to the council tax payer, because even when costs are won and fines levied, they are nothing like the cost of carrying out investigations, building the evidence base and taking the required enforcement action. If we are to ensure that rogue landlords acting in breach of existing laws are held to account by local authorities using those powers, we need to ensure, during the passage of the Bill, that the resources that are expected to arrive through the method of enforcement and fining are sufficient to make the process self-sustaining, or that the Government have alternative measures in mind to ensure that local authorities can access those resources by other means.

That is a long-standing issue and has been a factor for Governments of all parties. It was certainly a challenge in my 24 years in local government, under Labour and Conservative Governments. We need to ensure, in the interests of our tenants, that we get this right as far as we can.

[Ms Creasy]

As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in local government, the challenge is that the existing legislation relies on our constituents having the confidence to come forward, whether they are facing mould or unfair practices, and the evidence shows that the threat of a no-fault eviction means that many do not come forward. Does he therefore recognise that simply opposing no-fault evictions and relying on the existing enforcement regime means consigning people in an unfair market to silence and suffering?

[David Simmonds]

As a constituency Member of Parliament and former councillor, I entirely recognise the hon. Lady’s point, but what the hon. Member for Rugby said was significant because we need to recognise that 76% of tenants in the private rented sector report a high level of satisfaction, a much higher level of satisfaction than is found in other forms of housing tenure. If we are to strike the appropriate balance in this debate in the Parliament of the nation, we have to recognise that the vast majority of landlords provide a good, important and high-quality service, and make sure that the legislation we take through to address the difficulty and challenge that our constituents—citizens—experience is proportionate.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I know we debated in Committee. He correctly highlights the challenges in certain areas of enforcement. If I may, I will come back to that later in the debate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in recognising that this is not a partisan issue, because so many of us see the problems. The Minister talked about people not paying the costs when they win, but many will be shocked to discover that no precedent is set at a leasehold tribunal. We see companies exploit our constituents time and again, and it creates no precedent on which the courts and the tribunal courts could draw. Will he look at my amendment 1? It seeks to set that precedent and give people the protection of knowing that a freehold manager who has mistreated people will not be able to do it with impunity, because the courts will be able to take that into consideration if a tribunal has found that to be the case.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that she feels strongly about this matter and has raised it previously. I am always happy to talk outside the Chamber, but the advice I have received is that, at the higher tier of the tribunal, there is the ability to give an indication of the direction of travel and a precedent can be set there. As I say, I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady separately.

In Committee, we made efforts to further improve and expand the Bill. We moved 119 amendments, including on expanding leaseholder rights of redress and providing new guarantees that leaseholders will receive sales information, and tabled a number of technical amendments to improve it. Today we are proposing further improvements, and I will now turn to the Government amendments on Report. I will first speak to new clauses 30 to 35, and amendments 23 and 49.

Building on the Building Safety Act 2022, the Government have tabled a number of amendments to clarify and extend protections in specific areas to further prevent freeholders and developers from escaping their liabilities to fund building remediation work. The Building Safety Act provided leaseholders with a range of protections to ensure that those responsible for building safety defects were made to carry out the works or pay for them to be carried out. However, before and during the process of remediation, relevant steps may be required to keep the building and the residents safe. Relevant steps include such measures as providing waking watches, fire sprinklers or simultaneous alarms. Unfortunately, there have been cases where the landlord has failed to put those in place or to pay for the relevant steps. That has caused the leaseholder to bear the financial burden or required the local authority to step in.

New clause 30 would place beyond doubt that the first-tier tribunal can order that the costs of the relevant steps are met when making a remediation contribution order or a remediation order. It is often the case that doing surveys or investigative works to discover the full extent of remediation required on a building takes time, money and effort, and those assessments can be invasive. New clause 31 would place it beyond doubt that the first-tier tribunal has the power to order that a respondent must arrange and pay for evaluations, surveys or expert reports to establish the full extent of a building’s defects.

On new clause 32, we know that in some instances, landlords of buildings that are 11 metres high or above are failing to provide alternative accommodation for leaseholders when they are decanted from their homes. This new clause would place it beyond doubt that, in addition to relevant steps and expert reports, the costs of alternative accommodation for leaseholders and other residents who are decanted from their homes can be recovered through remediation contribution orders.

On new clause 33, resident management companies and right-to-manage companies allow leaseholders to have more control over their buildings. However, such management companies are unable to fund litigation against non-compliant landlords, as they are unable to recover the costs for doing so from leaseholders in their buildings. This new clause would allow such management companies, where the relevant lease allows, to raise funds for remediation contribution orders, making sure that we continue to hold those responsible for life-threatening defects to account.

New clause 34 would repeal section 125 of the Building Safety Act, which was intended to allow for the recovery of remediation costs relating to residential buildings that are 11 metres high or above in an insolvency, and for these funds to be used to remediate the building. However, there is a conflict with insolvency law and a risk that, instead of being used for remediation, any sums recovered under section 125 could be directed to pay down the debt. This problem cannot easily be remedied, so we are seeking to repeal the section at this time.

New clause 35 proposes that regulators need to be made aware if those responsible for relevant buildings—that is, responsible persons—become insolvent. This new clause introduces a duty on insolvency practitioners to notify local fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and, where necessary, the building safety regulator.

I also want to speak to new clauses 42 to 66, new schedules 2 and 3 and amendment 84. We know that there is little justification for selling houses on a leasehold basis. For years, developers have exploited the sale of houses on a leasehold basis for the sole purpose of generating an income stream from ground rents and fees. This has been done at the expense of consumers, who receive little or no benefit in return. We promised to shut down this abusive practice by banning the sale of houses on a leasehold basis, and today we are doing so. Other than in narrow circumstances where a lease can still be justified, all new houses will need to be sold on a freehold basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It was a great pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee on this Bill. We had a great debate, and there was actually a lot of agreement across the Committee Room. These are deeply Conservative reforms, championed by none other than Mrs Thatcher, starting in 1965, which she continued to do throughout opposition and during her premiership.

I gently say to Opposition Members, of whatever party, that they must not fall into the trap of making this a political football. They must engage with the seriousness and complexity of these reforms, in part because, as we have heard, they did very little to advance these very significant reforms during their own time in office. I suspect that they backed away from it because of the very significant legal challenges they would have faced, as we ourselves will no doubt face. Pretending they do not exist is not a serious position. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are aware of my comments, that we must not buckle, but must continue to take this forward.

It is great to see the package of amendments laid by the Government, particularly new clause 42, which is a ban on leasehold houses. I want the Minister to think carefully about how he will address the inevitable imbalance in the creation of a two-tier system, in which some people will have the freehold of their house, but some will not. There is an additional imbalance between flats in our urban areas and new freehold houses. That point was very well made by James Vitali in a Policy Exchange report. I am slightly worried about the omission from this of retirement properties, so perhaps the Minister could return to that.

In Committee, I spoke about the need to truly move towards a commonhold system. I think the Opposition’s new clause 11 is something of that nature. I very much hope that, as the Bill goes through completing its stages, the Government—here or in the other place—can look at that suggestion. I think we do need to set out the future legislative scaffolding for our fifth term in office, and to build on the work we have done so that we can finally get rid of this leasehold system.

Other Members have mentioned a lot of the points I would have made about shared services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) raised that, and it is one of my concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has done a fantastic job in talking about the lack of adoption by local authorities. There is also new clause 7, which I know is again an Opposition amendment, and new clauses 1 and 2. This problem is not going to go away. It is a blight on many homeowners in Redditch, and it also goes to the heart of our planning system. We really do need to look at that; we cannot pretend that it is going to solve itself.

I thank the Minister for writing to me about one of my concerns, which is litigation costs. I think new clause 3 looks at that. He has reassured me that what is in this Bill will go the distance in ensuring that leaseholders are not subject to unjust litigation costs by their landlord. That is one of the cases highlighted by Liam Spender and many others. These are hugely complex issues, but we must tackle them.

I want to see ground rents reduced to a peppercorn. It is pure extortion, and a feudal relic from medieval times when people were serfs and worked the land. We should not have this in 2024, or in any year. I refuse to believe that there is not a way, through the wit of man and the considerable intelligence of Ministers on the Front Bench, to solve the issue, perhaps where some financial assets are held in pension funds. I do not buy the pretence of that incredible con artist Mr Steve Whybrow and his outfit that somehow we are robbing pensioners. I would urge anybody with an interest in this debate to look at the genuine pensioners who are fighting for the right to have pure enjoyment of their own properties, which they richly deserve after a lifetime of working.

I will make my final remarks on forfeiture: it must go. The forfeiture of a long lease cannot be right. It cannot be right that a freeholder can hold this nuclear bomb over somebody such as Dennis Jackson, a pensioner, of Plantation Wharf. He disputed a £6,000 service charge, which led to an £80,000 legal bill, and he had his £800,000 flat forfeited during a 10-minute hearing at Wandsworth court. I thank LEASE for all the work it has done to help him. That just simply cannot be right, and we must address it. I want to see us finally finishing the job that Mrs Thatcher started when she was Opposition Housing spokesman in 1965. We must finish that job, and I thank the Minister for all the work he has done so far.

[Stella Creasy]

I feel for the Minister today, because he must be kicking himself. This is probably one of the few debates I have heard in this place recently where I have not heard a bad idea. As constituency MPs, we see time and again the problems caused by retaining this feudal system of leasehold, and I suspect that the Minister, who has been looking at this issue for some time, is kicking himself because what he would really like to do is abolish the whole thing. Indeed, today we have heard support from across the House to do just that. In the short time available, let me say again to him that he would have our support to move to commonhold. He talked about how commonhold was probably the better model, and for those of us living in the vortex of gentrification, where thousands of flats have been built in our community, this is an incredibly pressing issue. We know that the casework we have seen over the past few years will expand as a result of leasehold continuing. That is why I wish to see the Government change their mind, perhaps in the other place, about getting rid of leasehold altogether, and why I have been pressing my local authority to listen to concerns of local residents who are stuck with leasehold, and change our local plan to make commonhold the default. I hope that they have heard this debate and will rethink their opposition to that.

I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and wish to draw the Minister’s attention to two new clauses that I have tabled on issues with the existing system and the problems that leaseholders face. With 12,000 leaseholders in Walthamstow, I know that these issues will come up time and again.

New clause 2 is about the fact that although we have leasehold legislation, it does not tally with our consumer legislation. Leaseholders pay a service charge. They have a contract with freehold management companies to oversee problems in their properties, but few residents feel empowered to access rights that exist under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to have a reasonable service within a reasonable timeframe for repairs. Today, colleagues across the House have given countless examples of that, so let me add my own, which is where my proposed new clause has come from. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is not here. She talks about Leigh Court and new clause 67, but residents in Essex Brewery in Walthamstow have been without hot water and heating since before Christmas. Indeed, they are still without hot water and heating, with little sight of any change.

Essex Brewery was built just five years ago. It has become apparent that the build by Crest Nicholson was poor at best, and a downright con at worst. Until January this year, Crest Nicholson was on the management committee and made more than £100 million in profit in the year that Essex Brewery was built. It has made half that this year—possibly less—because of widespread concerns about the condition of the builds it has made. What does someone do when they have bought possibly their first home, whether through shared ownership or leasehold, as hundreds did in that development, and they find that the pipes that bring in the hot water are faulty? I am sorry to say that those resident have little redress, because the management company, Kinleigh Folkard and Hayward—another multimillion pound organisation—left them without any explanation of why it would not repair the hot water until after Christmas. What a Christmas present that was. The Grinch had strong competition.

That was another layer of bureaucracy. KFH was appointed by the Essex Brewery management company, which was established by the freeholder, Helpfavour, to meet those obligations. KFH told the residents that because their insurance policy said that as long as they had water at all, the property was habitable and it was not going to do anything about it. That has left hundreds of residents, many of them vulnerable, for months on end without any hot water or heating in the current weather. Residents have had to boil kettles to get hot water to cleanse their babies, or pay bills that they cannot afford for extra heating through portable heaters. For those who have shared ownership it is even more complicated. Metropolitan Thames Valley states that it owns 24 of those properties and that it is prohibited by law from fixing the problem. New clause 2 is about matching consumer legislation with leasehold legislation, and giving residents the right of redress, not saying, “You’ve either got to buy out the leaseholders if you want some property control, or you are stuck with them and waiting to see.” I hope KFH hears this debate and is ashamed of its behaviour.

Amendment 1 is about leasehold tribunals. I know the Minister spoke of precedent setting, but residents across the country would tell him otherwise. I beg him to look at the Warner properties in Walthamstow, and at Y&Y management, which repeatedly rips off constituents across the country. The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) is not here, but he asked why people have to pay terrorism insurance. In Walthamstow that was the Warner estate company, which said that because the plane bomber lived in our constituency, 3,000 households had to buy terrorism insurance. Such cases come up time and again with leasehold and they do not get fixed in the tribunal. Amendment 1 would give precedent.

[Vicky Ford]

For some of my Chelmsford constituents, these provisions cannot come soon enough. One constituent told me how he bought his leasehold flat seven years ago, but now he and his wife want to move to a bigger home to start a family and progress their lives. For the past three years, they have been unable to sell their flat. They have tried listing the property with many different estate agents and had many offers, but no buyer can get a mortgage on the property due to a clause in the lease that means the ground rent can be doubled every 15 years. According to my constituent, nobody in this block of 20 flats has been able to sell a property since 2018. They feel stuck.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I couldn’t agree more.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the challenges here is the lack of voice for our constituents in trying to address the problems. The Secretary of State says that he cannot defend leasehold. None of us can. It is a feudal process that still denies our constituents a voice over the thing that is most precious to them: their home. If he agrees with that, why will he not agree with us that we should move forward to commonhold, whereby everybody has a voice and a say in their own building?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

The Father of the House makes a very reasonable point. My point is simply that forfeiture is currently a blanket possibility that can apply to any breach of a lease, however minor, and non-payment of a very small amount could cost the leaseholder the total of the value of their property. That is what we have to stop.

Why do freeholders not have to join a redress scheme? The Committee called for them to be included in the redress schemes. The Secretary of State is bringing in a number of redress schemes and ombudsmen extensions, so why can freeholders not be included?

One of the big issues raised with us, where again there is a lack of transparency, is that many leaseholders have to pay into a reserve fund—a sinking fund—for their property. Can we not have some protection for those funds formally written into law? Currently, many leaseholders have no idea what the money is being spent on. There is no obligation on the freeholder to explain it and certainly no protection that funds have to be used for the purpose for which they are paid.

On mis-selling, one of the big complaints we heard when we met leaseholders—this related to houses in particular; Persimmon Homes has been mentioned, but there were other developers too—was the fact that they were being sold a leasehold as though it was the same as a freehold. The solicitors were compliant in that, because they had been recommended by the developer. Often, a bonus was thrown in: “We’ll give you new carpets in the living room if you use that solicitor.” The Competition and Markets Authority investigated at our request and said there was mis-selling, but so far nothing has been done about it. The Government have done absolutely nothing to rectify that injustice. Can we not see something on that again? I do not think that there is any great conflict across the House, or between anyone who has been involved in this matter. It is wrong—absolutely wrong. Solicitors should not be induced in this way to provide conveyancing to a purchaser, when the developer is recommending that solicitor. It simply is not right and it needs addressing.

My final point is one that we raised on the private rented reforms that the Government will hopefully pursue —and hopefully this year coming, rather than waiting any longer with regard to section 21. We have called repeatedly for a housing court. I know the Secretary of State will explain again why he does not want to do that, but I think we ought to keep asking. There are so many issues in the housing field that need a specialism, and need quick decisions and quick resolution. A housing court would be one way of doing that and of trying to improve the process.

[Stella Creasy]

One thing I think so many leaseholders find frustrating with our current court system and the first-tier tribunals is that they do not set a precedent, so even if we identify something with a freeholder who may have multiple thousands of properties, every single individual has to go through the process if they were not a party to the original case. Does my hon. Friend agree that a specialist housing court could at least have precedent built in?

[Mr Betts]

That is an extremely good point. I do not think the Select Committee actually made that point, but it adds to its recommendations in a very thoughtful and helpful way.

There are a lot of issues, and I am sure we will not resolve all of them in today’s debate, but they need to be addressed in Committee. There are reforms to the proposed legislation that could be made, most of them quite easily. The bigger issue of leasehold flats is for another day, but it ought to be kept on the agenda. I welcome what is in the Bill, which could be the basis for a much-improved piece of legislation. Perhaps we will see an improved Bill come back to us on report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I begin by echoing the comments of those on both Front Benches in supporting all those who, for many years, have been working on leasehold reform? As we have seen from this debate, this cuts across the Benches, because it is a classic example of the reality that we see in our constituency surgeries day in and day out. I also pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform for all the work it has done. I know that I have benefited from reading much of its material while trying—often in vain, frankly—to help constituents with freehold manager companies.

As we head into the festive period, I know that this would be the best possible Christmas present we could give to so many people who are struggling with the impact of what I call “leasemin”—the day-to-day admin or work they have to do to manage the fact that they have a leasehold property. In my constituency, like that of so many other hon. Members, thousands of people are in that position. It is not just about the costs of renewing a lease; it is the day-to-day problems that come from being in a leasehold block.

Given that it is the festive period and we all want to give people good news at this time of the year, I have to tell the Minister that it does feel a bit as though my constituents have seen Santa’s sleigh flying past with all the lovely presents, but all they are getting is a lump of coal because so many of them are in flats that will not be affected by this legislation. May I urge him to think about what more we could do to protect those people in flats, because there has been an explosion of this, particularly in cities and in areas such as mine?

Sadly, I am told this evening that Condé Nast has described part of my constituency as one of the new hot places. I always dread it when I see that because it means a lot more building, a lot more pressure on house prices and very little support for my local residents. So many of the people who move into those properties will be moving into leasehold properties and face these problems; they will face that basic nightmare of thinking they own their home when they really do not. It is theirs but only under certain conditions; it is not their castle to do what they want with. Those conditions can be about whether they can have pets or a loft extension. During the pandemic, many residents could not access the energy-saving proposals because that had to be done at leaseholder level and their leasehold managers were not doing anything about it.

There have been good freehold companies as well as bad ones; there is variation. But the fundamental challenge at the heart of this legislation, and why I asked the Secretary of State about it earlier, is that commonhold is the only way we can genuinely give voice to people. It is a voice that deals with the “leasemin” problem—much more so than having the most efficient freehold management companies possible. So I want to stress to the Minister that there is still time to put commonhold as the default tenure into this legislation, and give people the Christmas present they really deserve—the most proper protection against being exploited that we could offer.

Let me give the Minister some context for why I feel so strongly about this. The number of flats in my community has risen 13% in the last eight years while the numbers of other types of properties have remained broadly static. Frankly, every time Kirstie and Phil turn up in Walthamstow, we see another tower block go up, and those tower blocks are leasehold; more than half the property transactions last year were for leasehold properties.

This is a massive issue now for most local residents, fundamentally changing the nature of my community both in terms of the people who can afford to live in those properties and the impact this is having on the cost of living. It is no surprise to me that I have the ninth highest level of child poverty when I look at people who have bought what they think are great starter homes but then find themselves saddled with charges and costs that they cannot afford in order to try to stay in the area. The question for me is whether this legislation will address the challenges that they are facing, and I do not see that happening, However, I do want to acknowledge there are many things in the legislation that we all welcome, such as the shift to peppercorn rents and ending escalating ground rents, which for some of my constituents has been a massive challenge, and the idea of longer default leases.

Many people in my constituency are part of a group of leaseholders because they live in properties that were built en masse. That is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, I want to talk about the Warner estate in Walthamstow. They are beautiful properties, and I declare that I used to live in one myself. They were built from the 1930s to house the workers for our local industrial estates in the Lea valley. They were purpose-built flats built in two-storey terraced rows with a double front door and a split back garden. On a practical basis, that means that both residents in the properties have to want to buy the freehold, which creates a barrier for people and a challenge for so many of my constituents.

More fundamentally, the frustration I see is that, although thousands of residents live in these properties, every single one of them has a different interaction with the freehold manager. That is partly because in 2002 a situation happened which this legislation would not deal with. The Warner estate was sold and split up between Circle 33, Final Brief and various other commercial freeholders. The Minister might say that the residents would have had the right of first refusal, but because the leasehold companies were sold within parent companies and child companies of each other, residents did not get a look in. Therefore, local residents who organised themselves into Warner estate residents groups have had to deal with different companies even though they live side-by-side, complicating their ability to exercise what few rights they have under existing legislation. That means that there are different prices for renewal of the same length of leases, and different prices for quotes for having an extension and the paperwork needed for that. The most egregious difference is in the insurance they were all charged. In fact, many years ago they were asked to take on terrorism insurance for living in these properties. When I queried that with the freehold company, I was sent back the details of somebody who had been accused of terrorism and lived in Walthamstow; therefore, those who wanted to continue to live in the Warner properties as leaseholders needed to pay that additional premium. That is all perfectly legal and at the moment in this legislation there is no way to challenge that when a freeholder “takes the mickey”—I was trying to find a polite parliamentary term.

I guess my leaseholders on the Warner estate are at least grateful that they do not have a lease for Bridge Court, which is under—I am sure the Minister will know the name of this management company— Y&Y Management.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

indicated assent.

[Stella Creasy]

As the Minister is nodding, he will know the amount of casework that small set of properties, only 24 flats, has generated for me over the years. To give some examples of the charges residents have faced, one was given an extra £1,500 bill and another was due to be evicted for being spuriously charged £5,000 by that company. It is not legally possible for those residents to withhold those payments and not lose their properties, so they had to try to find the money to pay, even though it was patently obvious that that egregious company was levying the charges as punishment for their having dared to exercise their rights. The only option open to them was to go to court.

Again, this legislation offers nothing to help support people in such a situation. It offers nothing to help support people when their freehold manager shifts the leasehold around to avoid them having the right to manage or even the right to buy their own freehold out. This company decided the private communal gardens could be turned into a public car park, opening up the entire estate and letting in huge problems with antisocial behaviour, all because it thought it could make a fast buck in the London area with a car park.

Y&Y then transferred the ownership of the building to Triplerose, a management company owned by Israel Moskovitz, who is part of Y&Y Management. Just the other week a resident came to me to point out that they had an onerous ground rent clause, which means that their ground rent has to be reviewed every five years against the retail price rate. That was not in the original lease but was added in. The owners of that property tried to sell the flat, and they asked whether they could vary that condition, because it was stopping them being able to sell it. Triplerose responded, demanding an immediate non-refundable payment to provide a quote—just a quote—for what it would cost to vary that condition. It then came back with a quote of £700 for an admin fee, £1,400 for legal fees and £8,000 for the premium.

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

I have some casework that sounds similar to that which the hon. Lady is describing. It is at Pebble Beach in Seaton. A constituent wrote to say that she wanted to change the name on the deeds and introduce her partner’s name, and FirstPort wanted to charge her £540 just to get its approval. Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the leasehold companies we are talking about are charging Fortnum & Mason prices for services we might associate with Trotters Independent Traders?

[Stella Creasy]

I think even Del Boy had limits compared with some of the people we are talking about.

The Minister would probably say that in those circumstances the changes being made to ground rent should resolve the situation, and he would be right, but my broader point is that those residents have no redress. At the moment, the Bill does not come with forms of redress, and without redress it does not matter what rights people have because they cannot action them.

Those residents actually did go to a first-tier tribunal. They clubbed together, took on the risk and won—and understandably so, because if someone turns the private gardens into a car park, allowing people into the block, that does rather undermine the concept of service charges. They have been waiting three years for the compensation they are entitled to as a result of that ruling. Again, nothing in the Bill would change that. But that they went to a tribunal with a company with such a track record for doing these things over and over again, and that it meant nothing for future legislation and had no preventive effect, is perhaps the biggest and most important message Ministers should take from this debate. The fact that people cannot set precedent by winning a leasehold tribunal means that residents who live in blocks that are very similar go through the same fights again and again, and the same companies know they can get away with it again and again.

In any other legal situation there would be court precedent and opportunities for redress for our constituents. Surely, one of the things that we can do through the Bill is to change that and learn from other courts, because that “leasemin” is so time-consuming and stressful to so many of these people, and that is why they end up at our doorstep. Nobody wants to take on the risk of legal action if they can avoid it, especially if they have no guarantee that, even though the situation is patently unfair and somebody else has won a very similar case, that will make a difference.

We see it every single day. We see the people with repairs. I think of Hainault Court in my constituency, which has a freeholder of various names, including Freshwater, Highdorn and Daejan—it uses different ones all the time—where residents have spent hours of their lives trying to get the basic repairs that they pay their service charge for. They were charged £10,000 to replace a collapsed boundary wall. They got their own estimates, and it should have cost only £2,000 or £3,000. In a community where everybody is short of cash at the end of the month and every single penny counts, knowing that they have no alternative is a very poor place to be.

I wish I could say that situation is just in the private sector, but my own council was taken to court successfully by leaseholders over the charges being proposed for repairs and renovations in some of our local estates. Again, I hope that the Minister thinks about the right to manage, which is difficult to do in a block with a mix of social housing and leasehold property. In London, there are an awful lot of those properties, thanks to right to buy.

I also think of those people stuck with nothing to put any impetus on their property managers to do the right thing, even though they recognise that they need to do the right thing. I think of Hoffmans Road in my constituency, which is in that patch that Condé Nast is telling everybody to visit right now. The residents have no security on their building, because the doors do not work. The property company, Fexco, tells me that it is a problem for the developer, Taylor Wimpey. Taylor Wimpey, however, thinks it is for the property manager to use the money from the service charge to fix it. Nothing in this legislation will give those residents—my constituents—the ability to just get it sorted in the way that commonhold would.

We all have hundreds of examples. One thing that I have learned in this place over 13 years is that when we get these precious opportunities—when there is cross-party agreement that reform needs to happen—we should aim for the big reform, because we might not get the opportunity ever again. Nobody in this Chamber can defend freehold. Nobody can defend leasehold. We can all see the value in having a system that allows our constituents to have a direct voice. Goodness knows, I am sure for many of us it would cut the amount of casework we have, if nothing else. It would be a lot clearer what redress our residents have, before they have to go to court in the first place.

If we cannot have courts making precedent-setting rulings, can we at least look at how we can give our residents a stronger voice? For so many of them, it is the difference between a life well lived and a life lived in stress, wishing that they had never even bought the thing that they dreamed of, fought for and saved for longest of all. I had a cladding developer that said that it had put itself out of business so that it did not have to do the cladding; it was too small to be liable for it. Those residents are still waiting for redress.

All those issues tell us that this is not about a big-P political issue; it is about the day-to-day practical implementation. If we get this legislation right, we can solve so many headaches for so many people. I hope the Minister will not be Scrooge. I hope he will not be the Grinch. I hope he will think about what he can do for all those people sitting in those flats tonight, looking at the lump of coal that this legislation represents for them. Will he extend the Christmas cheer not just to those who might have been threatened by leasehold for houses, but to all those in leasehold flats right now? I know it would give everybody a very good 2024 if he did.

Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is of course extremely perceptive and he is absolutely correct. We presented an ambitious package overall, and that means we can meet head-on the challenge of delivering the much-needed planning permissions that my hon. Friend will no doubt welcome in his area—which I know needs more housing—and also protect and enhance our environment. In its recent comments, the Office for Environmental Protection has interpreted this in a very narrow fashion, and we do not necessarily agree with its assessments.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Minister has struggled previously with what constitutes retained EU legislation, but what we are talking about today is an amendment to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The challenge before the Minister is that this Government pledged, on the record, not once but seven times during the debate on the Bill that became the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, that they would not reduce those explicit environmental protections. Will she say now whether that pledge to match those environmental protections directly remains, or does she want to take this opportunity to correct the record and admit that the Government’s word on the environment is not worth the paper it is written on?

[Rachel Maclean]

I think that what I am struggling with is the fact that the hon. Lady clearly did not listen to my previous comments on this matter. I have said a great many times that we do not agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes, and we stand by that. We are the Conservative Government, and we are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than the one in which we found it. That is backed up by a strong package of action across numerous areas.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question first.

On the point about the legal advice from Mr Hermer KC, as I have said, we believe that that legal advice is flawed and it comes from someone who has a clear political record of partiality on this question.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I hope he will recognise that many of us in this House have stood up to the BDS movement. Therefore, his rather intemperate suggestion that only if we support this legislation are we against antisemitism does not pass muster. Does he recognise that those of us who would like to see local authorities challenged—perhaps through the Equality Act 2010—can find troublesome elements in this Bill? It is almost as if his myopia about the BDS movement has blinded him to the consequences of this and what it could do.

The Secretary of State boasted earlier that there were exemptions around labour rights and environmental laws, but is it not ironic that the Bill does not include an exemption around genocide? Those of us who have communities that are desperately concerned about the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas or what happened in Sri Lanka recognise that this legislation could stop our speaking out for them. Will he work with us—those of us who want to tackle antisemitism and to stand up for human rights—and rethink his proposals?

[Michael Gove]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and I acknowledge her work to fight antisemitism and stand against the BDS movement—more than acknowledge it, I applaud her for it. I would say three things. First, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that prevents the UK Government or other public bodies from taking appropriate action against Myanmar, against China over the treatment of the Uyghurs or against Russia and Belarus over their aggression towards Ukraine. I have seen no solid legal advice to suggest that is the case at all.

Secondly, if the hon. Lady or anybody else wants to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, I am completely open to them. I have not yet seen any such amendments, but I know she and others in this House are skilled in drafting legislation, and I look forward to seeing the appropriate amendments. However, as we have seen in the past, attempts to deal with the specific menace that the BDS campaign creates through guidance have not been sufficient. Primary legislation is required. The shape of that legislation I hope we can decide together across the House.

Building Safety

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Although I never endorse voting against this Government under any circumstances, I nevertheless reflect on the heroism and principle of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who have been genuine friends of those in need.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everybody agrees that leaseholders should not carry the can for these dangerous buildings, but the problem is in the delivery. I have been contacted by many constituents, including those on Planetree Path in Walthamstow, who cannot turn to their developer because it has gone bust, and whose freeholders claim to be too small to be liable. In the absence of anybody to hold to account, these residents have already had to scrape together £10,000 to pay for the surveys and reviews required before a single change can be contemplated to make safe the buildings in which they live. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those residents will be able to reclaim those costs from the building safety fund? How will that happen so the Government can make good on their pledge that leaseholders will not pay the costs?

[Michael Gove]

I very much doubt the freeholders’ appeals to poverty in this case. If the hon. Lady lets me know precisely who the freeholders are, the RSU can make sure we find the truth.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his area; I have dealt with him in a number of Departments, and he stands up for his community on every issue. I am grateful for the work he has done to make sure the Bill overall comes out in a good place, and I know he has also spoken to my colleagues on a number of issues.

On the amendment on childcare, I should emphasise that there is a list of what constitutes infrastructure for the infrastructure levy, and it is a non-exhaustive list, so it will be possible for other items to be included. It is drafted purposefully to give local authorities wide powers to apply the levy to infrastructure that is important and needed in their local area. It contains illustrative examples of what might be included as infrastructure, but in any event the levy will be able to be spent on childcare facilities such as nurseries and pre-schools, as these fall under the definition of

“schools and other educational facilities”

already included in the list.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know the Minister has tried to take account of these concerns, but from what she has just said, it is not the case that childcare would, unless it is connected to a school, be considered part of this. So what amendment 2 does is set out that, whether it is a nursery, a toy library or a childminding setting, if local councils felt that was something that needed to be done, they could work with developers to deliver it. Will she make that commitment, and most importantly will she write it down? It is one thing to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box, but those of us who have dealt with local government know that it needs to be in the guidance and regulations for us to truly declare that childcare is infrastructure.

[Lucy Frazer]

I totally understand the hon. Lady’s points, and it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of

“schools and other educational facilities”,

which is in the list at proposed new section 204N(3)(c). There is also a question about the provision of the care within that: that would not fall within the definition of infrastructure per se, but proposed new section 204N(5) allows regulations to make provision about when local authorities could apply levy money to non-infrastructure items, which could include subsidising the cost of childcare places for parents and carers if this was considered a priority by the local area.

I want to give Members across the House an opportunity to speak in this debate. We believe that our amendments focus on making the planning system, and the systems that interact with it, work better, innovating and improving for the benefit of all our constituents, and I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree and disagree with the hon. Lady. I agree that it is a good first step, and I disagree in the sense that the Government cannot consult for a number of years on what additional measures might be required. We are ultimately talking about local discretion to apply, whether it is use classes or a licensing scheme, but we think that, such is the acute nature of the problem in particular parts of the country, a registration scheme is not enough. We cannot wait until 2024 for additional measures.

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, share the sense of mysticism that I suspect parents around the country will feel about the fact that the Government consider childcare to be a “non-infrastructure item”? The Minister just said that—I hope she misspoke. Parents recognise that, just as we fund roads so they can drive to work, funding childcare helps them get to work. That is why many local authorities do not do deals to invest in childcare and make sure it and childminders are part of our local economies. That is why we need things such as amendment 2.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We believe it is essential that the infrastructure levy is designed and implemented in a way that, first and foremost, ensures local authorities deliver the necessary amount of affordable housing and core infrastructure to support the development of their area. For that reason, we raised concerns in Committee about the possibility that the levy could be spent on non-infrastructure items such as services that are wholly unconnected to the impact of development on communities, without those needs having been met. However, as my hon. Friend knows—as any parent knows—childcare is infrastructure. Given the acute pressure on childcare places in many parts of the country, we agree that there is a case for explicitly making reference to childcare facilities in the list of infrastructure in proposed new section 204N so that local authorities are aware that they can use levy proceeds to fund it as part of developing their areas.

There are a number of useful provisions in the Bill that we support, but we fear that any benefits that might flow from them will ultimately be undermined by others that risk causing serious harm, whether it be to already low levels of affordable housing supply, the status and remit of local planning or important environmental protections. If the legislation before us were only an idiosyncratic mix of the good, the half-baked and the bad—a typically Govian curate’s egg, one might say—that would be disappointing enough. What adds to the frustration we feel is the fact that, in a larger sense, it represents a real missed opportunity to enact the kind of planning reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges that we face as a country: to tackle the housing crisis, to respond to the climate emergency, to address our rapidly degrading natural environment, and to better promote health and wellbeing.

We have a chance today to overhaul the Bill in a number of important respects. We have a chance to rectify the aspects of it that are problematic and enable it to address the vital issues on which it is currently silent, and I urge the House to come together to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8 to 11 in my name and the names of other hon. Members.

As chair of the national parks all-party parliamentary group, and with a delightful corner of Dartmoor in my constituency, I am pleased to propose these new clauses. As we all know, national parks provide many benefits to nature, climate, heritage and culture. However, they are underpinned by an outdated legislative framework, which prevents them from realising their full potential for people, nature’s recovery, the 30x30 initiative and the Government’s net zero goals.

The Glover review of protected landscapes in 2019 highlighted these issues and put forward a package of recommendations to address them, the majority of which, to be fair, were accepted by the Government in their response to the review. But it is time that we implemented them to make best use of the rich natural heritage that we have been blessed with in our country. The new clauses that I have tabled could act as a vehicle to take forward the Glover review’s recommendations.

National parks play a key role in furthering the Government’s levelling-up mission, particularly in having a positive impact on our health, wellbeing and pride of place. Given this Bill’s focus on environmental matters and the planning system, it provides the perfect opportunity to implement the Glover recommendations to strengthen national parks as planning authorities. We must take this opportunity as these next few years are vital for meeting the commitment to protect 30% of England for nature by 2030, for halting the decline in species abundance and for making progress towards net zero.

New clause 8 delivers on proposal 1 in the Glover review to give national parks a renewed mission to recover biodiversity and nature. Natural England has found that only 26% of the protected habitat area inside national parks is in favourable condition, compared with 39% for England as a whole. The new clause seeks to address this disparity by recognising that we have a role not just in protecting national parks, but in actively strengthening and recovering them. It also delivers on proposal 7 of the Glover review, which proposed a stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes.

National parks have invaluable potential to improve people’s connection with nature and our levelling-up goals require that we should all enjoy equal access to nature across the country. During the lockdown, we learnt that, if we did not already know it. Natural England has shown that, if everyone has access to a green space, we could save the NHS more than £2 billion a year.

New clause 9 implements two recommendations from the Glover review to give national park authorities a new duty to address climate change and to strengthen the existing duty on public bodies to further national park purposes. The Government have already said that national park management plans should contain

“ambitious goals to increase carbon sequestration”

and

“set out their local response to climate adaptation”.

New clause 10 helps in setting out realistic goals for national park improvement. That would deliver other key elements of proposal 3 in the Glover review, that strengthened management plans should set clear priorities and actions for nature’s recovery and climate in national parks, and that legislation should give public bodies a responsibility to help prepare and implement management plans.

New clause 11 seeks to address Glover’s ambition to increase skills and diversity on national park authority boards. The Government’s response to Glover committed to measures to ensure that boards

“have more flexibility to balance diversity and expertise”

and proposes

“a more merit-based approach”.

So let us get on with it. The new clause would deliver this flexibility, removing the restrictive legislation referred to in the Government’s response, and ensure that boards are better equipped to deliver national park purposes. I am supported in these new clauses by the Better Planning Coalition, representing 27 organisations across the key sectors of the environment, housing, planning, and heritage.

I had a positive meeting last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is responsible for national park policy. She is committed to working with national parks to bring about the bright new future that Glover anticipates and I hope that those on the Front Bench today will assist her in that vital mission.

[Stella Creasy]

The “Levelling Up” White Paper set out a mission that by 2030 the number of primary school children who were achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and maths would be increased. That cannot be done without investing in early years. We already see the impact of the failure to do that, with children from disadvantaged backgrounds being 11 months behind their peers in terms of development by the time they get to primary school. Investing in early years is what bridges the gap.

We know that our early years sector is in crisis. Since 2019, 500 non-domestic early years childcare settings have closed, 300 in the last year alone. Some 65% of those closures took place this summer. In total, there are 5,500 fewer providers of early years services than there were just a few years ago, and 95% of those providers say that it is the current levels of funding and investment that are driving them out. Crucially, that is happening most in the areas that need that provision most: 15% of closures are happening in deprived areas.

I really hope that the Minister will listen to the case I make today, because it should be a no-brainer. It is not just about seeing children as part of our future and it being worth investing in them as infrastructure. Some 64,000 more women of working age are out of work today than were last year, and 35,000 of them say that caring commitments stop them going to work. I tabled amendment 2, because our economy cannot afford not to realise that childcare is infrastructure. We must realise that making sure people have the right roads and resources to get to work must include ensuring that their children can be cared for.

A report by the Centre for Progressive Policy shows that if women had access to adequate childcare they could increase their earnings from £7.6 billion to £10.9 billion. What would that mean for the Exchequer, which should be here supporting this amendment? The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on work for childcare reasons. That costs the economy £28 billion a year. Amendment 2 and unlocking resources for childcare would be a win-win for our economy and for our communities. It would be an investment that would save us money. It is also right that developers should play their part.

Comparing Ofsted and Office for National Statistics data shows that since 2014 the rate of population growth outstrips the growth of the childcare sector in 116 out of 149 local authorities, including 15 of the 20 areas with the highest population growth. The National Childbirth Trust now tells parents to put their not yet born children on the list for childcare providers, because there are not any and getting one is almost impossible.

I see the problem first hand in my local community. The brilliant Walthamstow Toy Library is about to be yet again kicked out of its building because developers want to turn it into flats. Those developers looked completely blank at the idea that they would invest in providing a space for that service because it has such an impact on our local community. That is happening across the country: vital resources that help parents get to work and to develop our children are not getting the funding that they need. The Minister could change that if she would just make it explicit that the provision is not about educational settings. The list that she has now covers nurseries that are attached to schools, but what we are talking about is any form of childcare and revolutionising the funding that is available.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has done an excellent job in highlighting this issue in the context of the debate, but I have some sympathy with the Government’s position on this. Does she recognise that the Department for Education guidance on this matter in November 2019—and it is a DFE matter, not a DLUHC matter—explicitly states that early years and childcare is something that local authorities can use in seeking a section 106 contribution from a developer? It is already in the regulations, which I was not aware of when I put my name to her amendment. Does she also acknowledge that, while we are all sympathetic to her point about maintaining affordable childcare, developer contributions are as a rule capital only for the provision of buildings and facilities, and may not be used for the ongoing support of day-to-day services?

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Member heard the words of the Minister, who called childcare a non-infrastructure item. He will know of examples, as we all do, of councils building in payments for police community support officers or ongoing maintenance as part of a development. If he is right that developers could do this, why oppose writing it into the Bill to put it beyond doubt and make sure that developers and councils know they can do it?

Passing amendment 2 is about saying the words that my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson said and, frankly, the hon. Member’s did not: “Childcare is infrastructure. The mums listening right now who feel invisible do matter. The services that would help them get back to work do matter. Parents are as important to us as potholes.”

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

The hon. Member, the Minister and everyone in the House knows that I have campaigned for and championed changes to childcare policy. The Minister absolutely did not dismiss or dilute the Government’s commitment to changing and supporting childcare. Amendment 2 covers two separate things: childcare facilities, and whether community infrastructure levy funds can be paid for ongoing amounts. It is important to be clear about that.

[Stella Creasy]

I quote back the words of the Minister, who talked explicitly about how non-infrastructure items could include subsidising the cost of childcare. If we subsidise police offices or anti-fly-tipping activities, why would we not subsidise parents to get to work? We have an opportunity—

[Siobhan Baillie]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because of the time. The hon. Member will have her say too.

Amendment 2 would put childcare on an equal footing. Why are we making this form of infrastructure second best? Why are we debating the matter when it seems that there is common agreement? We all recognise, if we have dealt with local government, the need to clarify things and put them in legislation. The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) talked similarly about waste and water infrastructure, and the Minister was happy to confirm that that was covered. We need to give councils a clear line, and that is what I am looking for from the Minister today, because I think she has actually muddied the water somewhat. We must ensure that we write things into legislation so that we put these debates beyond doubt.

Let us do this for the sake of our children and our economy, and for all the women sitting at home right now watching the debate because they cannot get the childcare they want to be able to get back to work and pay taxes. This is a cross-party issue, but it will divide the House, and it will send a clear message about whose side we are on when it comes to those parents. The amendment would mean the world to all those parents who are struggling to find affordable childcare places right now. I pay tribute to Pregnant Then Screwed for setting out so clearly the impact that it could have, because investment in childcare pays for itself.

I ask the Minister to rethink her words, to say clearly that childcare is infrastructure, and to write it down in the legislation in the way that she has for water and waste, so that parents and potholes get equal attention from us in this place.

[Chris Grayling]

I rise to talk specifically about new clauses 3 and 5, but first I should make a point on the broader housing issue. My constituency is the smallest borough in my county, and it is the most densely populated part of my county. It was never realistic for the centrally designed targets to apply to an area where we were being asked to increase the housing stock by about 25% to 30%. I praise Ministers for reaching what I believe to be a sensible compromise.

I am very much in favour of new homes in my constituency—I have argued for a number of new developments, and I continue to do so—but house building cannot be simply unrestricted. It cannot be at the level that a formula requires; we must apply common sense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), in negotiation with the Secretary of State, have come up with a sensible way forward that will deliver extra housing—I passionately believe that we have to have extra homes in my constituency—but in a sustainable way. We must remember that the national planning policy framework requires us to strike the right balance between three things: building new houses, looking after the local economy and looking after the local environment. I believe that what we have on the table now will deliver that.

I turn to the new clauses. On solar power, I have a simple message for Ministers. I cannot understand why we have not reached a point where it is mandatory to put solar panels on the roof of every new building in this country. Although I do not think new clause 3 will take us through the Division Lobbies tonight, I strongly urge Ministers to work across Government to deliver that. When I was Secretary of State for Transport, I argued that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should insert a requirement for a charging point in every house with off-street parking. I still believe that, but there is really no reason at all not to have solar panels on the roof of every property, whether or not it has parking space. It should be a central part of our future strategy, and I strongly urge Ministers to adopt it.

New clause 5, which I have personally pushed forward, is what I describe as “the hedgehog amendment”—I speak as the parliamentary species champion for the hedgehog—but it is much broader than that. It is about saying that it is simply wrong for a developer to be able to acquire a site and clear it without doing a proper holistic survey of the ecology on that site. It is absolutely vital that, as we are a Government who believe in strengthening biodiversity safeguards in this country, there should be tight rules for developers. They are obliged to do surveys for the presence of bats and newts, but there are a whole range of other vulnerable species that do not fall under that requirement. I want to see very clear legal rules that say, “You buy a site, you survey what is there. If you identify vulnerable species on the site, you have a duty of care to those vulnerable species to relocate them and provide alternative habitats.”

The Government have done good things on biodiversity net gain, but I want to see a situation where a vulnerable species on a site is not likely to be cleared away by a bulldozer. That does happen—there was an horrendous case in the west country recently. About 20 hedgehogs were killed by the reckless clearance of a site. We have all seen it in our constituencies. Developers do it to create the sense of, “Well, it’s a wasted site anyway. We cannot use it again, so you should give us consent to build houses on it.” My new clause provides a way to ensure that does not happen.

I want to pay tribute to the Minister. We have had some very constructive dialogue on this issue and I know she is pretty sympathetic to the aims I have put forward. What I ask of her today—I think she may have a clear sense of how we can go forward—is, in her closing remarks, to set a direction for the Government that will provide the actual protections I am seeking, which will reinforce the work we have already done to protect biodiversity and ensure the particular ability of developers to come in and clear a site is absolutely precluded in law. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says in winding up. I praise her for what she has done so far on housing and on many other aspects to the Bill. I hope she will also be able to deal with this aspect, the biodiversity issue, in her remarks and as we go forward.

Social Housing Standards

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am really grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that question and for the way in which she raised it. It does seem to me, on the basis of the facts as we know them, that this family were victims of prejudice, whether unwitting or otherwise. There are other examples, and there have been other examples, of individuals in both the private rented sector and the social rented sector who have been treated with significantly less respect than they deserve because of attitudes that are rooted in prejudice. We all have a responsibility across this House to call that out when it occurs and to ensure that people, whatever their background, are treated with the dignity they deserve as human beings.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let this be the point where no one is ever told again, “Open your windows and the problem will be solved.” May I caution the Secretary of State against relying solely on the housing ombudsman as the best mechanism for our constituents to seek redress? RSLs such as Clarion and London and Quadrant have, when doing repairs, left residents in hotels miles away from where they live. Residents are getting heavily into debt and languishing because the RSLs are not doing the repairs properly. Residents do not have the weeks and months it takes to secure redress. The companies will use their insurance policies to cover the cost of doing the repairs on those properties. Will he give tenants a right to access that money, so we can concentrate the minds of those social landlords to treat those people with the dignity they deserve?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is certainly the case that the two RSLs she mentions have failed tenants in the past and she is right to call that out. Her broader point on whether we can give tenants the additional rights she mentions is an interesting one. I commit to working with her to see what more can be done.

Greensill Capital

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The Chancellor has delivered £356 billion-worth of support, I think it is currently, to businesses. He has flexed at every opportunity across Government in devising and designing loan schemes, which are overseen by the British Business Bank, which is overseen, as the single shareholder, by the Secretary of State for BEIS. That is what we should be proud of. The Chancellor is not afraid of anything here. The question is about the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, which is administered by BEIS, and that is why I am here to answer it.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I understand and share my colleagues’ concerns about lobbying, but, like other corporate financial scandals such as Enron, we need to follow the money. We know that it was the German Greensill Bank that made the loans to Sanjeev Gupta and also supported the use of the private jets on which our former Prime Minister made many journeys, and that the bank is now under criminal investigation as many thousands of German people face bankruptcy. What conversations has the Minister had with the German prosecutors about the CLBILS loan scheme, and will they be invited to give evidence to the inquiry?