Disadvantaged Communities

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Disadvantage comes in many forms, and today I want to talk about child poverty. I grew up in poverty caring for two disabled parents. It took me a very long time to say that, and every time I do my mum will text me afterwards to say that she loves me, she is sorry and she did her best. No mum should ever have to text their son that. Enough is enough, and I want this Labour Government to stamp out child poverty.

There are five quick solutions that we could take forward. The first is nothing less than the resurrection of Sure Start. We know the benefits and impacts: a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report found that access to a Sure Start centre significantly improved children’s educational outcomes and reduced hospitalisations; children with Sure Start access in their early years were less likely to have depressive and anxiety disorders in their later years; and the impacts were remarkably long lasting.

Let us do as the 1998 comprehensive spending review did and commit to 250 Sure Starts in the most disadvantaged communities, within a pram push of a person’s home. Let us resurrect our town and district centres by, wherever possible, filling empty shops with spaces where we can co-locate and integrate services once and for all.

Let us think again about our libraries. Some 800 have closed in recent years and the number of librarians has been slashed. Let us reinvigorate our libraries as a place for the imagination to develop and roam, and let us centre Sure Start right there.

Let us involve the integrated care boards. They have a duty to tackle health inequalities and can do that work. [Interruption.] Time is short; I am going to be fast.

We need to invest in playgrounds, which are more likely to have been cut in deprived areas. We need to tackle the two-child benefit cap. I am glad to see that the Labour Government are looking at that again; it would have a significant impact overnight. We need to consider bus travel for children and younger people. Let them have free bus travel so that they can access opportunities. Let us, once and for all, stamp out child poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

That is a really good example of where the “how” matters. The theory, which was certainly built into the funding formula under the last Conservative Government, and indeed, the coalition Government, was that growth in housing numbers, which many Members have spoken of as important, came with the new homes bonus. So that was additional revenue funding coming into the local authority as a result of that growth. The theory was that the infrastructure spending would be followed by growth in revenue as a result of those locally made decisions. Clearly, I understand that the Minister’s Department has taken the decision to cancel that as part of the funding formula, and she will no doubt set out what the Government’s new strategy will be. But what the hon. Gentleman describes is a really good example; it is no good having one without the other.

When we look at the ICON report and other consistent reports about this issue over the years, they highlight the significance of businesses as the backbone of any local community. The availability of work, in particular, is critical not just to the economic wellbeing of a community, but to the physical and mental health of those who live there. There is ample evidence, from the UK and all around the world, of the benefits that that brings. As we all know, it is a statistical fact that no Labour Government have ever left office having reduced unemployment—it is always higher when they leave office than when they take it—and the early-warning signs so far are not good. None the less, I hope that the Government will succeed in that agenda.

[Tom Hayes]

This Labour Government have seen 500,000 people added to employment since the election in July, which is a point that we should reflect on. But does the Conservative party commit to ending child poverty? Is that an explicit goal of the Conservative party under the current leadership?

[David Simmonds]

Ending child poverty has been a long-term commitment of the Conservative party. Reference has been made, positively, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the work that he did with the Centre for Social Justice, which enshrined that as a policy agenda during the years of the coalition Government. Again, this comes back to the question of how we most effectively achieve that. Evidence from across the country shows that growing up in workless households is one of the things that creates intergenerational poverty. The opportunity to grow up in a household where somebody works, even if it is only part time to begin with, is a fantastic boost to a child’s life chances. There are many other points within that.

Leasehold Reform

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely can. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for buildings in Southampton. We are meeting later to discuss one of them. I assure him, and those residents, that we know that they need change and relief now. That is why we have made the changes that we have been able to make so far. We want to get the changes right so that when the relief comes, it sticks, does not get mired and has the right impact. However, we appreciate the urgency with which my hon. Friend speaks.

Several hon. Members have mentioned service charges and managing agents. Service charges have become a particular pinch point, highlighted by the cost of living pressures in recent years. The LAFRA gives us measures to increase transparency and to remove barriers that prevent leaseholders from challenging them, including more standardised information. However, this year, we will consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and litigation costs so that we can bring them into force as quickly as possible.

We will also consult on reforms to the section 20 major works procedure, which landlords must follow when leaseholders receive big bills for large works, as has been mentioned in the debate. There is much more to do in that area.

On the subject of managing agents, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth that we have heard her call about minimum standards.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My constituents have been defrauded by Initiative Property Management, are suffering at the hands of Scanlans Limited, and have had to deal with the Residential Management Group, representatives of which I am meeting later today. I welcome this Labour Government’s action to hold companies such as those accountable, to challenge unfair charges and hidden fees, and to end leasehold. What is the Government’s message to rogue management companies? I ask so that when I meet the Residential Management Group, I can convey the will of the Government.

[Alex Norris]

I am keen to say clearly from the Front Bench that we will legislate in this area to close the dark corners that unscrupulous managing agents use to maximise profits. However, they do not have to wait for that in order to do the right thing. They have a duty to residents. There are many great examples of managing agents and landlords doing the right things by their residents. That is good for them, their building and the individuals who live there. They can do that today. I know that my hon. Friend will continue his work until they do so.

That brings me to an important point that was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth when she opened the debate, about the regulation of managing agents. They play an important role, particularly in multi-occupancy buildings, and that role is likely to increase in importance as commonhold becomes the default tenure. Many provide a good service, but there are too many examples like those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. I know that all hon. Members here could tell me about similar examples. In 2018, the previous Government committed to regulating the sector. The report came back from Lord Best and they did not respond to it. We are looking at it closely and we will set out our position in due course. However, we have said that as a minimum, we will include mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents, to ensure that they have the skills that they need to carry out their role to a high standard.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned building safety and fire, which are part of my brief. As a Government, we understand that as part of our remediation acceleration plan, we need to give clarity about what a remediated standard is. I have talked to insurers about it, including about what they are asking for. The cladding safety scandal is being addressed through remediation. That cannot lead to a half a dozen other issues for leaseholders. We are pushing industry in that area, but we have been asked for certainty and we will deliver it.

There has been a lot to consider in this debate, and it could easily go on for another hour, which I think would be important. However, I know that colleagues will not let the matter lie. The subject is frequently on Parliament’s agenda, and rightly so. There are people living under intolerable strain. We are committed, as a Government, to giving them relief as quickly as possible, and in a way that sticks. I will be working on it with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and colleagues over the coming weeks and months.

Question put and agreed to.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In their interactions with management companies, my constituents feel done to, shut out, left behind and ignored. It feels like my constituents are hearing one message—“You don’t matter”—but my constituents do matter, and I want to represent some of them in this debate; sadly, time will not allow me to mention them all.

Two of my constituents live in two separate properties in Bournemouth East. They have been defrauded by Initiative Property Management, the sudden collapse of which left leaseholders with depleted reserve funds and significantly out of pocket. One leaseholder estimates that they have lost £80,000 and that they and the other residents in their block have lost around £1,200 per flat per year. Another estimates a total loss from fraud at around £10 million. A serious fraud investigation is under way.

Another constituent has suffered at the hands of the management company Scanlans Ltd, which has asked for £5,000 a year from them and other residents but has done nothing to maintain the garden and communal areas. At one point, a dead rat was left in the communal area for months. Scanlans is now in ongoing communication over plans to address those issues, but no clear action has yet been taken.

Another constituent has had to deal with Residential Management Group. RMG refused to deal with a rat infestation, and left the door to the communal area unsecure, with homeless people breaking in to sleep there. The case has been taken up with RMG and is ongoing. The themes that many of us will discuss today are common: excessive and unjustified service charge increases, a lack of transparency and financial accountability, poor communication if any at all, and poor building maintenance and unresolved issues. Enough is enough.

I want my constituents who are watching, feeling let down and having been left out of pocket by unacceptable conduct, to know that as their MP I will continue to fight on their behalf and alongside them for justice. I will continue to work to ensure that nobody else has to suffer the hardships, anguish and abuse that they have suffered. We are fighting this together. We are making progress, and I am pleased that the Government are in a hurry to address this important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. The revised national planning policy framework, which we published last year, included changes designed to improve the provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities such as his expect.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I have been campaigning for fair renting in Bournemouth, and I recently held my first renters roundtable at the Bournemouth food bank’s café. It was attended by, among others, my constituent Alison Thomas, who cannot cook in her home because water is leaking through her kitchen ceiling and she is scared to turn on any electrical devices. My constituents the Al-Mubaraks, a family of six, rent an overcrowded home, with black mould so harmful that the headteacher of the four children living there has written to my office to express concern. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need urgent action to improve the state of the private rented sector in Bournemouth East?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he does to support private renters in his constituency. I am saddened but, in all honesty, not shocked by the cases he raises. Such experiences are still far too common in both the social sector and the private rented sector. In particular, we know the health risk posed by damp and mould. That is one reason we have chosen to sequence the implementation of Awaab’s law in the way we have, as it will allow us to apply the protections to damp and mould earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Political Donations

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I want to start by taking stock of where we are as a country. We are in a particular moment in British history. The Conservative Government that this Labour Government replaced did a number on this country in two ways. First, as we have heard from other hon. Members, our electoral and political system has been diminished—for instance, the Electoral Commission has fewer teeth. Secondly, vast swathes of our country feel hopeless. When I knocked on doors over the past two years, I began to feel that the opposition was not in fact the Conservative party but hopelessness. Whether it is the fabric of our society being torn apart or our public services being underfunded, people have been cast adrift, and they are increasingly unconfident about the ability of democracy to fix our problems. That is why fixing these problems is so important for this Government.

We are also in a particular moment in world history. That moment is one of democratic backsliding, and of the rise of authoritarianism, populism and misinformation. If we as a leading western democracy do not fix our rules around political donations and our electoral and political system, we will not be able to contribute to the survival of democracy in this moment, when democracy faces such a significant challenge. We have to get it right for our own people, but we have to get it right, too, for the democracies of the world.

It is important, therefore, that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations, and that the Prime Minister has said that he wishes to protect democracy from the threat of interference. The Government are right that we need to move further and faster to protect our elections and our national security against foreign interference. That means shoring up and shielding the integrity of our democracy and our institutions, which have been made vulnerable to foreign actors by some of the changes made by the previous Government, which we have heard about.

We also need to reflect on the fact that this world moment involves a particular intersection between the concentration of wealth that can sway elections in the hands of a small number of people who happen to be tech billionaires, and the fact that these wealthy men are foreigners to our country. If they were to get engaged in our politics under the current system, they could sway our elections through donations, as well as through their use of technology and communication channels. That is particularly important, because there are challenges around the use of the online space to spread misinformation, the role of artificial intelligence and the role of hacks, as well as questions about donations to political parties, candidates and agendas.

We know the names of some of these tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. There is also, as we all know, Elon Musk. I talk about Elon Musk here for illustrative purposes, rather than just to single him out as an individual; any of the individuals I have just mentioned could use their tech wealth to be involved in the political activities of this country. But as I saw when I went to Queen’s Park Infant Academy and spoke to some of the younger people there, they are concerned about foreign donations into our country’s political system.

One young person said to me, “What do you make of Elon Musk?” I did not quite know what to say, so I flipped the question back and said to that child, “Well, what do you make?” Her answer was absolutely pitch perfect. She said, “Why is a South African-born person, who lives in the United States, has funded a presidential election there, and is now part of the US Government, threatening to get involved in UK politics. I can’t even have a say in UK politics.” I think she makes an interesting point, and I thank her for making it.

Elon Musk cannot legally make a donation personally to a British political party, but he could go through UK subsidiaries of his companies, and we ought to be worried about that. He has suggested that he could donate significant sums of money to a political party in the UK. My concern is not about who he chooses to give that money to—I would not want his money coming to the Labour party. My concern is about his ability to give that money under present rules and the influence that that could buy. We have to be concerned about that.

There is a second point: we have a prevalence of wealth among tech billionaires, who may be getting involved in the political system of our country, and these are individuals who also have control over platforms, such as X and Starlink in the case of Elon Musk. That gives him significant control over access to information, and also over the integrity of information on those channels. For instance, with Ukraine, he has made on-again, off-again threats to end Starlink’s support for Ukraine. With X, we know that he has removed content moderation, and as a consequence we have seen that site become a den—a haven—for misinformation and populist rhetoric. We need to think not just about donations and who donates, but about what power those people have to influence agendas through their control over tech and social media channels.

This is dangerous not just within a democracy, but on the world stage. Elon Musk might be talking about funding one political party in the UK, but he could fund parties around the world if their electoral laws allow. It is not just about his view of one particular party in this country, it is about his view of particular agendas—here I will mention his endorsement of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.

How do we go about toughening up the rules? I believe there are three things that we can do. First, we should close the loopholes, and ensure that when companies make their profits in the UK for two years, they are able to make donations, but at no other time. We should also introduce a requirement for political parties to know their donor and identify the true source of donor funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules. Frankly, if Elon Musk were to become actively involved in financing UK political parties and then to breach election law, the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission could levy is £20,000. I do not think that a man who is worth £263 billion is going to be very concerned about £20,000.

Thirdly, we need to look at closing the loophole in our donations system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even made a profit in the UK. Often, they have chosen to be in shell companies because they do not want to contribute tax towards our welfare system, to fund the schools and the hospitals that many of our voters depend on and whose improvement they say is their main priority.

We need to strengthen democracy by strengthening our rules around donations. We need to be conscious of the threat to democracy in the UK and around the world from the concentration of wealth in tech billionaires, who often have narrow agendas. We need to be especially conscious of the capacity of those billionaires not just to fund our politics but to distort it through the communication channels that they have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I want to sum up some of the contributions made by colleagues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, who of course opened the debate, for the points in her speech; to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his contribution; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his contribution, as well as other hon. Members—I hope I am not missing colleagues out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell).

There were some excellent contributions about some of the outstanding issues that we need to address, as a Parliament and a Government, by my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and, of course, by the Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

Various questions were raised in the debate. In relation to the issues surrounding donations, we recognise that further work needs to be done. The Government are concerned about the growing threat of foreign interference and are focused on ensuring that we have systemic resilience and institutional strength. Of course, any suspected breaches of the rules, now or in the future, will remain a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police.

A number of colleagues mentioned donations from overseas electors. As has been mentioned, the franchise change for British citizens living overseas came into effect on 16 January 2024, removing the 15-year limit on overseas citizens’ voting rights. Overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that includes the right to donate to the parties or candidates they support, but foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors, and overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identities confirmed as part of the registration process. Colleagues asked questions relating to the 15-year rule; we have no plans to reintroduce it.

A further question was raised about increasing the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for breaches of the political finance framework. As I stated earlier, robust enforcement of political finance rules by the Electoral Commission is crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral system. As I said, that is why, as part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we will look at any changes that are necessary to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.

The strategy and policy statement was raised. We recognise the vital role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity, and this Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. The current strategy and policy statement does not reflect the Government’s priorities, and we will not keep it in its current form. Alongside our broader electoral reforms to strengthen democracy, we will be reflecting on what actions are necessary in relation to the statement in the coming months.

Hon. Members raised the issue of safeguards against political donors being given favourable treatment in relation to Government contracts—for instance, PPE contracts. The Procurement Act 2023 strengthens existing obligations in respect of conflicts of interest. Contracting authorities must take all reasonable steps to identify, mitigate and keep under review conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate it cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded from that procurement.

Hon. Members raised the issue of foreign nationals being allowed to donate in UK elections. Electoral law ensures that only those with legitimate ties to the UK can donate. That includes people of varying nationalities who are established in the UK and are legitimately entitled to vote in certain elections, such as resident Commonwealth citizens. We do not propose to renege on that principle; instead, we are focusing our efforts on the real risk of foreign interference coming from external actors with no such legitimate links.

Reference was made to lobbying. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 ensures that there is transparency around meetings between Ministers and external groups. When it comes to foreign influence, additional controls are being implemented through the foreign influence registration scheme that will require those being directed by a foreign power to carry out, or arrange for others to carry out, political influence activities to register with the scheme.

I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues, and I am happy to follow up in writing if there are outstanding issues that I have not been able to address.

[Tom Hayes]

The Labour party was elected on a manifesto that committed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote; the Minister referred to this earlier. Can she confirm that we will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and perhaps set out a rough timetable for when that might happen?

[Rushanara Ali]

We have already set out our plans in Parliament, and before the summer recess we will set out a strategy in relation to what we intend to do, including the legislation.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Brewer]

I completely agree. The Government should be more ambitious in the Bill to ensure that building regulations mandate nature-friendly developments to provide sustainable and healthy housing.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I agree that Britain is among the most nature-depleted countries in all of Europe. Does the hon. Member agree with Greenpeace, the Green Alliance and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that if development is done hand in hand with nature, both can thrive, and that the Bill achieves that?

[Alex Brewer]

I agree that nature and building should go hand in hand, and I hope that the Bill will start to achieve that. Good green and sustainable design works for everyone concerned. Sufficient insulation in homes prevents heat loss and reduces bills and carbon emissions. Solar energy production and proper flood protections are other obvious examples where investment up front pays dividends down the line. A great example in North East Hampshire is Hart district council offices. Since the installation of solar panels on the roof, a phenomenal 57,000 kWh of electricity has been generated each year. Imagine if we put solar panels on every new house that was built.

Major issues such as flooding and drainage plague many areas up and down the country. In my constituency, Hartley Wintney high street, Hook and the surrounding areas are frequently flooded because of blocked drains, as surface water cannot drain away effectively after heavy rainfall. Hartley Wintney fire station even had to raise all its electrical sockets higher up the wall because the flooding has been so frequent. Our local businesses are struggling to get sufficient insurance. The Bill should include a binding commitment to the land use framework, which would help to determine where more permanent land use change can occur, to find the optimum balance between food production and ecosystem services such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity.

I come again to the question of new houses. We need them and we need them fast, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that our new homes are properly fit for the future. They must be built in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with proper consideration for our food security, biodiversity and carbon footprint. Communities do not mind new homes, but people also want GP appointments, NHS dentists, rural bus services and to be able to drive down roads with no potholes. There is an opportunity to be ambitious here, and it is being missed. I urge the Government to be bolder and to strive for planning that is as committed to the environment, to integrated infrastructure and to our local communities as it is to housing.

Political Finance Rules

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. The lack of transparency in the funding of our political parties is well documented, although I suspect not so well known among members of the public, who tend to associate the corrupting influence of money in politics with other countries, usually very far away. The reality is that it is taking place on our doorstep.

According to research done by Transparency International, almost �1 in every �10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some �42 million comes from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in other corruption, fraud or money laundering, and �38.6 million comes from unincorporated associations that have not reported the source of their income, despite Parliament introducing new transparency rules in 2010. The rest of its findings highlight millions from donors alleged or proved to be intermediaries for foreign funds and/or a hidden source, and millions from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions they have made.

Other research has confirmed that successive Governments have invested trillions in the defence industry. Our new Government are also proposing to increase defence spending to 2.5% and then to 3%. The defence industry is reportedly responsible for approximately 40% of all corruption worldwide, and much of the money that we and other countries spend in defence is funnelled back through opaque channels into political parties and members. The industrial military complex needs to be investigated and dismantled.

The fact is that our political finance rules are too weak on hidden money, making the system vulnerable to subordination from rich individuals and secretive vested interests. My constituents and people from our country are concerned by the malign influence on Government policy of parties, Governments and Opposition Members and other Members accepting millions from state and industry lobbies, corporations and mega-rich donors.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a case. Does he agree that foreign money has no role in our democracy, and that one of the strongest ways in which we can clean up our politics and indeed strengthen our democracy is to make sure that the Electoral Commission has real teeth and has higher fining powers? Does he also agree that where we have concerns about foreign money coming into our country, we should have particular concerns about money coming from people such as Elon Musk?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. The action that the Electoral Commission should be permitted to take should not just be limited to bigger, greater fines for donors. There should be consequences for those accepting donations and potentially being influenced.

My constituents and the people of this country see and feel in their daily lives the deep impacts of pro-rich, pro-war, anti-poor and anti-consumer decisions and policies. The solution lies in reforms: to tighten spending rules; to shine a light on the source of financial contributions; to lower spending limits to reduce campaign costs and reliance on large donations; to introduce donation caps of �10,000 a year for individuals and organisations, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics; and to close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources.

The UK used to lead the way on funding transparency. The UK was a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, and placed third in the 2014 OECD open data index, but in recent years the UK has slipped. The most recent OECD rankings saw the UK fall to 24th place, with stories about dodgy dealings, personal protective equipment procurement and Ministers� disappearing WhatsApp messages all contributing to the decline in the trust that the public place in their politicians.

As has been mentioned, it should be a cause for grave concern that of the �85 million of private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 donors giving more than �1 million each, the highest ever share of mega donations. If we do not want our politics to go the way of American politics, with British equivalents to the likes of Elon Musk and his fellow tech billionaires blatantly using money to buy influence and remake politics in their own interests, we need tighter regulation of political finance than we currently have, and full transparency for the public.

English Devolution and Local Government

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I have been consistently clear on the elections. Elections do cost money, but how can we justify having an election to then have another election within 12 months, which will cost huge sums of money for taxpayers? I gently say to the hon. Member that councillors were elected and that we are working with local councillors to deliver for local people.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

As a councillor for nearly 10 years, I welcome the devolution proposals. As Bournemouth East MP, I backed Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council becoming part of the Hampshire proposal, and so did the BCP Labour group. Frankly, we have closer economic ties and geographic similarities with Hampshire. BCP council voted for a Wessex deal late in the day, and I am disappointed that BCP will not be prioritised for devolution of skills where they could have been under a Hampshire proposal. How can I ensure that my local communities will not be left behind, and will the Deputy Prime Minister secure a meeting for me with the Local Government Minister to put BCP back on the agenda?

[Angela Rayner]

I am happy to facilitate a meeting and, as I said before, the Minister for Local Government is happy to meet with local leaders. We want to see more devolution. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s disappointment on skills. We want to push forward with devolution, unlocking the potential and pushing power down from Whitehall into local areas, and I am sure that his meeting with the Minister will be fruitful.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Although I do not want to upset the camaraderie going back and forth across the Chamber, this is debate, and this is democracy. I am sure we can all agree that no voting system is perfect; we are choosing between imperfect systems. That is a fact. We must decide based on what works best for our country, and PR is not the panacea that everybody is talking about today.

In 2011, we put the question to the British people. They overwhelmingly rejected the alternative vote system, choosing to stick with first past the post.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On Monday morning, I visited the year 10 citizenship class at St Peter’s school in Bournemouth, where I spoke with several young people, including Ozzie, who was only just born at the time of the last vote. He asked me whether I agreed that too many people feel their vote does not count, that too many younger people feel disconnected from democracy, and that the continuation of first past the post will leave more people—particularly younger people—disconnected from democracy.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

The Bill finally removes section 21 no-fault evictions, and today’s amendments will strengthen the fairness of the market for a wider set of tenants. On behalf of all the Sallys and Rachels, I wish to acknowledge the work of this Government in their commitment to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants and to produce changes that are pro-market, pro-tenant and pro-community. The abolition of section 21 notices and the fair changes that we need cannot come soon enough. It is too late for some people, but this Bill and its provisions will ensure that people in Portsmouth and across the country have access to a good-quality and fair housing system.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

There can be few places in our country that need this Bill more than Bournemouth East. A total of 33% of households in my constituency are in private rented accommodation, which is considerably more than the national average of 19%. In Boscombe West, a ward, 60% are private renting, and in East Cliff, where I live, it is 56%. Rents went up in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole by 9% in the year to October 2024, which is higher than the national average. Some 81% of respondents to Shelter’s Dorset survey in BCP said that they were struggling to pay their rent. As somebody who used to lead a mental health charity, I know the link between health outcomes, poor mental health and poor rented accommodation. For everybody living in poor rented accommodation in Bournemouth East, I know there will be a significant effect on health outcomes.

I want to talk briefly about the abolition of no-fault evictions and bring my constituents into the debate. My constituent Caroline from Boscombe had lived in overcrowded private rented housing with her two children with special educational needs and disabilities for 11 years before being given a section 21. Being forced to move at short notice has significantly negatively affected her mental health. The Labour Government’s abolition of so-called no-fault evictions in the Bill will go a long way to giving tenants like Caroline greater security.

I also welcome a decent homes standard now being applied to the private rented sector. My constituent Naomi, from Boscombe, recently contacted me about the repeated incidence of mould in her one-bedroom rented flat, which she shares with her partner and their 10-week-old baby. The flat also has dangerous loose floorboards, a leaking shower and fire doors that do not close. Her landlord continues to ignore her emails. The provisions in the Bill that apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector will give renters like Naomi safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes from our communities.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I raise the case of one of my constituents? He is a dad with a young daughter, and he has a chronic illness. Not only did he have many unfair deductions to his deposit at the end of his tenancy, but the landlord refused to fix the shower because they claimed it was some other sort of device—what a disgrace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get through that Division Lobby, fight for our constituents and reform renters’ rights once and for all?

[Tom Hayes]

I never disagree with my hon. Friend, and his point shows why we need the Bill.

I welcome the Bill’s protections against unreasonable rent rises and rental bidding. My disabled constituent Tracey, also from Boscombe, got in contact with me about how a substantial hike in her rent acted as an effective eviction as she was unable to pay. Despite looking to use her personal independence payment towards her rent, she was forced to look for alternative accommodation, and we all know how difficult that is in the private rented sector for people with disabilities. I welcome the protections in the Bill against unreasonable rent rises because they will provide much-needed security for renters like Tracey who struggle to find appropriate accommodation in the rented sector to meet their needs.

I also welcome the introduction of a new ombudsman service, which will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolutions for tenants’ complaints about their landlord, bringing tenant-landlord complaint resolution on a par with established redress practices for tenants in social housing or consumers of property agent services. I welcome the move to make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of housing benefit or other benefits or with children when choosing to let their property. That particularly affects James in my constituency, who is homeless and cannot secure private rented housing because he is in receipt of benefits.

All of us who hold constituency surgeries week in, week out will know these stories. All of us have campaigned for better renters’ rights because we have heard those stories on the doorstep, and I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill at such an early stage in this Parliament. We must of course make the point that not all landlords are bad, but the Bill is important because it weeds out those bad landlords so that the good landlords—those who care about their tenants and who provide an important duty to the housing market—can continue to have a good reputation, and so the overall market continues to have that good reputation.

I commend the Bill and the ministerial team for bringing it forward. I am thrilled that renters in Bournemouth and across Britain will finally, after many years of delay, get the renters’ rights they deserve—no, that they are entitled to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a thoughtful and good-natured debate, and while there are many genuine points of difference and emphasis, there is a consensus across the House that reform of the private rented sector is long overdue and must be taken forward.

In the time I have available to me, I will respond to a number of the amendments and key arguments. In his contribution, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), suggested that Government new clauses 13 and 14 risk locking out of the rental market those renters who are on the financial margins and fettering landlords and tenants coming to fair agreements on tenancies in the assured regime that we are introducing. I gently say to him that he seriously downplays the imbalance between landlords and tenants, and the fact that requiring multiple months of rent from a tenant in advance when agreeing a tenancy is unfair, places considerable strain on tenants and can exclude some people and families from renting altogether.

Landlords will continue to be able to take a holding deposit of up to one week, a tenancy deposit of five or six weeks’ rent and up to one month’s rent in advance before a tenancy has begun. They will also be free to undertake the necessary referencing and affordability checks to give them confidence that a tenancy is sustainable for all parties. If and when they are not satisfied by the outcomes of pre-tenancy checks, options are available to tenants and landlords to ensure that rent in advance need not be used—requesting a guarantor or engaging in landlord insurance, for example. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with a degree of reassurance on that point.

The shadow Minister tabled a number of amendments—several of which we debated in detail in Committee. With regard to amendments 57, 58 and 60, I restate the argument that I made in Committee: fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements without the freedom to move should their personal circumstances change, and compel tenants to pay rent regardless of whether a property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. For that reason, the Government remain firmly of the view that there is no place whatsoever for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces.

A number of hon. Members referred to problems with short-term lets. The Government are cognisant of the impact that excessive concentrations of short-term lets can have on the affordability and availability of local housing and the sustainability of local communities. We are committed to monitoring that issue and, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), knows, we are exploring what further powers local authorities need to bear down on it. However, putting an arbitrary deadline in law, as new clause 2 would do, is not the way to proceed.