What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I absolutely wish the hon. Member’s constituents all the best. It is entrepreneurial spirit like that that drives the economy forward. I will give one example of the support: there is a big extension of UK export finance so that such businesses can find new markets, because the best way to become a more resilient business is for them to open up and diversify their markets. I will gladly put his constituents in touch with people at UK Export Finance to discuss that.
This Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which closes down the equivalent of 38 businesses every day. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May and had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 9 June. This legislation sets out stricter maximum payment terms, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to ensure that small businesses are paid on time. That will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
My hon. Friend always fights hard for small businesses in his patch. This Bill will ensure that purchasers pay suppliers within 60 days and that mandatory interest is paid on late invoices. For too long, large businesses have used small businesses as a source of free credit. That will end under these plans. That will mean better cash flow for businesses in his constituency, more jobs, more economic growth and better high streets.
Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.
It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. Leasehold has become the ultimate con. Given the sheer quantity of leaseholder issues and complaints about the behaviour of property managing agents that my team and I come across weekly, some would think that we would be experts in this area, but no two cases are the same, and each case is more complicated than the last. The system of leasehold is far too complicated. Whether we are looking at EWS1 forms, cladding, major works or service charge transparency, leasehold involves a number of different parties, each with their own interests, and the vast majority of cases end with all avenues being exhausted and the constituent having to seek legal advice, but not everyone has the time to go back and forth with their MP, raise internal complaints through every mechanism, and then complain to the ombudsman, and not everyone has the time and resources to seek legal support for their case. Thousands of leaseholders are encountering these issues, and they are completely locked out from accessing support. Past legislation to improve leaseholder rights seems to have added an extra layer of complexity, so any new legislation must simplify the system, not further complicate matters. I have a specific concern about leaseholders in housing association buildings. While recent legislation has improved leaseholders’ rights in privately owned blocks, housing association freeholders have often fallen outside the scope of reforms. Housing associations must be specifically addressed in future legislation. I turn to the unregulated headache that is managing agents. There absolutely needs to be a mechanism of oversight and enforcement, so I welcome the recommendation from an independent regulator, but that regulator needs not just teeth but claws. It needs to be able to fine managing agents, remove their licence, and prosecute repeat offenders who we know are gaming the system. I cannot tell the House how many cases I deal with in which a constituent is just trying to get a response from their property managing agent. Frustrated leaseholders are paying ever-increasing service charges, and it is simply not right that they are struggling to even get a basic response. Charges climb year on year, but transparency does not climb with them. When my constituents ask for a proper breakdown of what they are paying for, too often they get vague figures, unanswered emails or silence. Lifts are broken, stairwells are unsafe, and communal areas never get cleaned, but still the bill arrives, unchanged and unexplained. Leaseholders have no real power to challenge what they are being charged for—and heaven forbid they refuse to pay their service charge, because then the communication they once begged for comes swiftly, in the form of threatening letters claiming the money. This would not be tolerated anywhere else. Ofgem, which is not always that great, ordered E.ON Energy to pay £5 million, after customers were left waiting on hold for 18 minutes on average, and half their calls were never even getting through. It fined Maxen Power £1.65 million for poor communication and mishandled accounts. Just this January, a landlord in Harrow was prosecuted and fined £9,000 for failing to provide fire and electrical safety certificates, and a landlord who fails to carry out an annual gas safety check can face an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison. In every one of those cases, Parliament has decided that taking someone’s money and failing to deliver is not just providing a bad service, but carries real consequences. Management agents can take thousands of pounds a year from leaseholders, deliver next to nothing, and walk away with a strongly worded letter. We do not accept that anywhere else in housing law, and we cannot keep accepting it here. An independent regulator must do what was not possible in the past, which is remove the licences, fine the managing agents and, as I say, prosecute where necessary, because what these organisations have been doing is absolutely criminal.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. There is no safe level of air pollution. I will say that again: there is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life is not risk-free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, almost 1,600 people die in road traffic accidents and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, approximately 43,000 people die prematurely from air pollution, yet there is silence. Well, no more—the public are finding their voice about this silent, invisible killer. This morning in Parliament Square, doctors, nurses, academics, carers, mothers and babies came together with the Healthy Air Coalition, the National Heart and Lung Foundation, Mums for Lungs, trade unions, and Asthma + Lung UK to demand that Parliament act. Eighty-two of them represented the 82 people whose lives are cut short by air pollution every day. We have a public health emergency on our hands and the response from successive Governments so far has simply not been adequate. We have no co-ordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation limit values. Sadly, the annual data released this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published new air quality statistics for 2025; note the words “air quality”—it should be “air pollution” statistics. It found that “annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 showed an increase of 12 per cent at urban background stations and an increase of 14 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024.” It also found that “annual mean concentrations of PM10 showed an increase of 12 per cent for urban background stations and an increase of 8 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024” and that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by “3 per cent at urban background stations” although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations. I hope that everyone notices the irony that DEFRA insists on calling this “air quality” instead of air pollution. Let us be clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths in the UK every year. Let us imagine the reaction if a new covid variant was having such an impact. Imagine if knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, or if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day. Air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five and it is the largest environmental risk to public health, yet it remains the silent killer—the invisible killer—because it is often masked by other diseases that it has aggravated. We have had just one case where the coroner’s certificate reports air pollution as a cause of death: that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had “died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.” He said it “made a material contribution” to her death. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and to all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right. Rosamund was in Parliament Square this morning with all those campaigners. The work that she has done to bring this matter to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament. Scientists have found links between air pollution, almost every organ system in the body and the major diseases that affect them. That includes the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bones, skin, reproductive system and even the central nervous system, where air pollution increases the chance of developing dementia. The current health evidence, based on more than 60,000 studies, links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses. Although the scientific evidence base grows every year, we know more than enough to realise that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here is what we know about the state of air pollution in the UK: air quality targets and the legal air pollution limits are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no Government-wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to below World Health Organisation guidelines. Funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate, and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low. Seventy years ago this month, when the UK published the Clean Air Act 1956—the first Act of its kind—we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim. After the great smog that killed 4,000 people in a week—with a total death count estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 in the penumbra—the Government passed the 1956 Act. Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition and urgency. Before we consider doing that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value. The Government are fond of setting targets. A target is something that is aimed for. A limit value is a threshold that should not be crossed. In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants: PM2.5. Its guidance is a level of no more than 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK’s legal limit value was set in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; it remains four times higher than the WHO value, at 20 micrograms per cubic metre—that is the legal limit. The recent environmental improvement plan introduced a new date to achieve a target of 10 micrograms per metre cubed: 2030—it had been 2040. That sounds like good news, a target that will be achieved 10 years earlier, but do not be fooled. The target for PM2.5—that is, the aspiration rather than the legal limit—is still double the WHO guideline. It actually represents no progress at all. In DEFRA’s 2024 monitoring data, all but one monitoring site just met the 10 microgram target. Those are the sort of targets that DEFRA loves: ones where nothing has to be done to achieve them and everything can be left as bad as it has always been, but it looks as though action is being taken. We need not a target, but a legally binding limit value that is the same as the WHO’s guideline of 5 micrograms per metre cubed. We need a wider plan to get PM2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the nitrogen dioxide target. On that, the WHO guidelines are 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40 micrograms. When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act 2021 did not even set a long-term target, so action on that key pollutant is not included in the Act’s delivery plan. It makes no sense for the Government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently from PM2.5. We should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines. On our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 micrograms until 2045. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be aware that the latest DEFRA figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre—more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it is thought that air pollution contributes to one in 20 deaths in the region each year. Moreover, national-level statistics can mask local authority-level data, as exposed by the work of Asthma + Lung UK. Its research found that local authorities are breaching the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, even when national Government have determined them to be under such limits. That is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors despite local authorities being mandated by the Government to collect data. So we have situations such as the one in my Brent West constituency, where three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide despite the Government saying that Brent, and London as a whole, supposedly meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 micrograms per cubic metre; at the corner of Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, it was 41.76; at the junction of Forty Lane and Kings Drive, it was 43.5. Each of those is more than four times the WHO guidelines, and each is right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic, illegal air pollution that my constituents are exposed to, yet if they read what the Government say, they would not even realise it.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. The heat dome that we have been experiencing interacts with pollution and gives us extra ozone and causes huge health problems. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, if his officials are on the ball on this—just when the number of excess deaths caused by last week’s high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level; it would be extremely interesting to get those.
How did I know that my right hon. Friend would be introducing that subject? I excised it from my speech because I knew he would. He is absolutely right, and he will have seen the assessment that came out just 10 days ago, which said everything he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow. Whatever we think about the economy—as he knows, the assessment was not too hot on that either—it is a disaster for public health. I do not decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that has resulted from the ultra low emission zone expansion. What the mayor has done has been really significant; the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been huge, and we really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. Even if the hotspots dipped below the 40 microgram legal limit, that would still be four times the World Health Organisation guidelines.
I give my condolences to the Hollis family for the tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the electrification of the bus system must go further and faster, but it is not just a London problem, as he knows: it affects areas across the country. It is absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification of vehicles. He knows—I will come to this later—that it is not simply the exhaust that is the problem with those large vehicles; it is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles produce on the roads. Although the focus is often on particulate matter and NO2, we are falling behind on other pollutants. Ammonia, which is highly reactive, forms secondary PM2.5. The UK is not projected to meet its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We have made essentially no progress in ammonia reduction in 20 years. In the Netherlands, regulatory controls on agricultural ammonia contributed to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016. This is possible—other people are doing it— so the question is: why are we not? Ozone—O3—levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long-term objectives remaining off track. Alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. Achieving long-term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory. There are two more categories of particulates that are of growing concern: ultrafine particulate matter—UFP—which comprises 90% of airborne particles, and black carbon, or soot, formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFPs, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM2.5 and PM10. The current official advice from the UK Health Security Agency that the health effects of UFPs are “adequately covered” by the particulate matter air quality standards is simply outdated. Black carbon is a major contributor to climate change and poses a significant health risk as a universal carrier for a wide range of toxic chemicals that find their way into our bloodstreams. We need a comprehensive monitoring system and specific targets for UFPs and black carbon as the evidence of their severe health impacts grows. However, it is not just what we pollute; it is where we pollute. The focus to date has largely been on outdoor pollution, yet we spend 80% of our time indoors—in our homes, offices and schools, or commuting between them. Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under-addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated environmental improvement plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution. Poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill. In some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoors exceed those outdoors. For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide and many volatile organic compounds are often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. NO2 levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution from gas hobs and ovens that exceeds limits of pollutants permitted outdoors. Around half of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most people will be the biggest source of NO2 pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home decarbonisation policy, and are totally ignored in the warm homes plan. If we want to protect people’s health from air pollution in the home and fully remove their reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, such as the one developed by Global Action Plan and CLASP in partnership with experts and academics. Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1,000 lung cancer deaths annually. In not only our homes but our workplaces, we are exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety Executive’s workplace exposure limit for inhalable dust, which includes PM10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight-hour exposure. The WHO guidelines for PM10 are 45 micrograms—not for an eight-hour exposure, but for a 24-hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines. This is a matter of not just public health, but inequality. Let us be honest: who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets? Who works in the dirtiest factories? Who lives in poor-quality housing? The answer is those who have no choice. They are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour Government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it as they do not have the means of escape. It is a fundamental breach of their human right to breathe clean air. Tackling air pollution is not just a DEFRA issue; it should span every aspect of our Government and every aspect of our lives, as air pollution does our homes, our schools, our travel and our work. We need a co-ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban NO2 sites, because those are where the Government have faced the strongest legal pressure. That means that progress on other pollutants, as well as indoor air pollution, has stalled. We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new clean air Act. That was recommendation 34 of the joint report, “Improving Air Quality”, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee. That report published nine years ago, in 2017. All those Committees made that recommendation—in 2017. If it had been taken on, imagine how much further on we could be in tackling this issue and how much more progress we could have made. That recommendation stands today, in the year that marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act. Just as we have the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the Government produce and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a clean air Act under which the Government set out detailed, thorough and demonstrably achievable plans to bring down the levels of pollutants. With legally binding pollutant budgets, the Government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants, building on the 2030 targets and with limit values for perhaps 2035 and 2040. The Clean Air Fund suggested to the Select Committees that our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants should be 2040. I do not know whether that is the best target; I would like to see it brought forward. However, if we set that as the goal, just as we have set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Co-ordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new clean air Act would ensure that air pollution is no longer relegated to being just a DEFRA issue. In reality, it affects, and is affected by, every single Government Department. Mr Efford, there is so much more in my notes that I could say, but I am getting exhausted and I can see that others in the Chamber wish to contribute. I welcome the fact that the Minister has stepped in for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy); she has spoken to me, so I know she was unable to be with us today for her own very good reasons, and I accept that. I am grateful to the Minister for stepping in for her today, but will he please go back to the Department with this message? I know he is a new Minister in the Department, but new Ministers come in with new ideas. They can come in and say to the boss, “For God’s sake, I’ve just been in Westminster Hall, and I can’t believe what it is that we are doing.” Will the Minister try to make the case for us and for the 43,000 people in our country whose lives are being cut short every year? Let us do something imaginative, something bold and something worth doing: let us pass a clean air Act.
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Thank you for giving me the nod earlier to curtail my remarks. It only goes to prove that we do not need to say everything: often, we think—at least I do—that we need to get everything in, but what was lovely about this debate was that I did not manage to get in everything that I wanted to say, but then all my hon. Friends did it for me. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned the £27 billion impact that this clean air Act could achieve, which would have come later in my speech. That is a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness. The Royal College of Physicians did a poll with YouGov in which 95% of people did not know there was a link between air pollution and diabetes, and 85% of people did not know about the link between air pollution and stroke, heart disease or poor foetal health. The hon. Member was absolutely right to raise the importance of public awareness; it was an important contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke with deep knowledge from her days as a shadow Minister and as a medical practitioner, as she told us. She stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, and the need for a new clean air Act with a national framework. That is really important—that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed was reinforced by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said about the need to do this and bring it together. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who spoke of her work for the mayor and of the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Committee, spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental. He also raised wood burners, but of course the Minister will know—if he does not, his officials will—that the DEFRA labelling standards, by DEFRA’s own lights, will reduce pollution by only 2%. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who spoke movingly about Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She mentioned the modal shift to public transport, and spoke about important things such as local solutions and school streets.
Okay. I will be very brief, and I will not give way. I really enjoyed it when the shadow Minister was on the Environmental Audit Committee with us. He made a very valuable contribution then, but he lost his way when he went over to the Front Bench. How can he at the same time extol the £27 billion that will be brought into the economy and then say, “But actually we can’t afford to do it”? He talked about a 35% reduction in population exposure—great, but he had no baseline when he did that, so he did not know what he was reducing by 35%. I thank the Minister very much for standing in. The Secretary of State “may have failed, and be continuing to fail, to comply with relevant duties under the” air quality standards regulations “to ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented.” That is not me, but the Office for Environmental Protection in January. What is not to like? Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport, better insulated, less mouldy homes that run on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the economy—for God’s sake, let’s just do it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
For 28 of the 29 years that I have been in Parliament, I have campaigned for leasehold reform. I was instrumental in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and on the Bill Committee during the passage of the 2024 Act. I welcome the Select Committee’s report and pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her remarks. There are 11,000 individual leaseholders in contact with my office. I pay tribute to Jackie George, who is in daily contact with hundreds of them; she is my office manager, and most of what she does with leaseholders is actually in her spare time. Leasehold reform is about control. It is about passing power and control from the moneyed interests to the people whose homes they affect. To do that, we must enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. For enfranchisement, that means restricting development value. It was promised to Parliament by the last Government in 2021 and it was meant to be in the 2024 Act. It is just wrong that leaseholders can be held to ransom by hypothetical development value, with developers claiming that they could build in the garden or on top of the building and demanding huge extra sums to stop leaseholders from affording the freehold purchase. Nicola Muir, a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, has wryly observed “it is amazing what development landlords believe is possible and the profits they claim they will generate”. She cited one instance where the landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of a block. Today, the right to manage is a shadow of what the Labour Government legislated for in the 2002 Act. Freeholders can punish leaseholders who have taken back control of their blocks with the right to manage because of the Supreme Court decision in 2022—the Settlers Court decision—which went against the intention of Parliament by allowing freeholders to retain control of estate charges. We need to revert to the pre Settlers Court position; the Law Commission’s remaining right-to-manage recommendations would help to achieve that. An entire legal industry has emerged in torpedoing right-to-manage claims for freeholders, where tiny procedural details can see leaseholders spending literally a fortune to defend their right to manage in tribunal and the courts, only to lose the claim. The tribunal has no power to waive errors made over the procedural traps, yet the reforms to change this—the remaining Law Commission right-to-manage recommendations that would end frivolous lawfare of freeholders and make right to manage a universal scheme—have been omitted from the Bill, despite previous promises. I am conscious that the scale of the leasehold crisis has become much worse since the Law Commission issued its final report six years ago. There are quick-win policies that could still be added to the Bill, such as reducing the arbitrary 50% trigger for right-to-manage claims—as many hon. Members have already said—to 30% or 35%. Just imagine if we had a law that that said a bad Government could be removed only if 50% of all citizens with the franchise, and not just those who actually voted in an election, had to support the proposition. That is the situation with leasehold. If the right to manage is a no fault right—
I congratulate the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on securing this important debate. The issues raised in her Committee’s recent report speak strongly to the experiences of thousands of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse, which is the constituency with the highest percentage of leasehold homes. Like members of the Committee, I am not just alarmed but very angry about what many constituents have to go through to get even basic repairs and maintenance done. Far too many of them have to deal with uncommunicative —sometimes even rude or dismissive—managing agents, who can offer no clarity on maintenance works, and who delay necessary repairs again and again. To give a recent example, in the heatwaves, constituents living in Royal Captain Court in my constituency have endured the most horrible conditions. The lifts were forced into fire safety mode because of the extreme heat in the tower, which is not air-conditioned. One resident fainted on the staircase, and dozens of others suffered in the temperatures. Residents have said that until the BBC reported on the case, they received no replies from the managing agent Sanctuary about how, when or if repairs would be done. The issue of lift breakdowns is common in my constituency, and will occur more and more as climate change intensifies. On top of that, as we all know, service charges and fees are going through the roof. One constituent recently contacted me to say that their service charges rose by 12% in the last year, after doubling in the decade up to that point. Residents of Aberfeldy Village in my constituency are reporting service charge increases of £600,000 by FirstPort, and residents of the Wapping Lane development report that Ballymore increased their service charges from £7,000 in 2014 to £17,000 this year. Across the board, residents and constituents tell me that there is no transparency regarding the accounts, and we know that they cannot easily or fairly challenge increases in court. The Government have been consulting on the implementation of section 56 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on provisions around service charge transparency—measures that many of my constituents need implemented swiftly. However, there must also be regulation of managing agents. I cannot simply accept the massive discrepancies in costs, the service charge increases, and the lack of communication and basic decency. In Poplar and Limehouse, many leasehold builds are huge. They are incredibly tall—over 20 floors high, in many cases—and that would make it very difficult for leaseholders to take over and run their building under the right to manage, which is a system that desperately needs simplification. Some changes are being brought forward in the leasehold Bill, but thousands in my constituency will continue to suffer runaway service charges and from rogue managing agents. In the absence of the abolition of leasehold, it is only right that the Government accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Lord Best, and introduce an independent regulator for managing agents through the leasehold reform Bill. I urge the Government to do that.
I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for the excellent work that they have done in preparation for this Bill. Pensioners who bought retirement flats in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in my constituency were hoping for peace of mind; instead, they have had rocketing service charges, poor maintenance and a lack of communication and transparency from FirstPort, the property managing agent. Does my hon. Friend agree that while commonhold is a fantastic opportunity for leaseholders to take charge, we need further independent regulation of property agents to ensure that they provide a good service to leaseholders and commonholders in the future?
My hon. Friend mentions the Mayor of London, who has made substantial strides, but I refer him to the matter of emissions from buses and the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. Pollutants from diesel buses are a continuing problem, especially when buses are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. That is of particular concern to my constituent Kate Hollis, whose 12-year-old son, Jack, tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believes was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to their house in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these issues and who, like me, is a London MP, share my and the Hollis family’s concern that electrification is going too slowly, with potentially dangerous consequences?
Trust in politics is at an all-time low, and part of the reason is that our society is littered with examples of structural unfairness, injustice, and ordinary people being ever so slightly fleeced. The housing market of recent years is a strong case in point, with multiplying ground rents, abuse of the forfeiture system, opaque service charges, management companies that cannot be changed, overpriced maintenance performed by firms connected to the management company, no adoption of common assets, short leases and exorbitant lease extension fees—the list goes on. It has been a privilege to have played my part in scrutinising the draft Bill, because it represents an opportunity to put a significant dent in some of these practices, and to demonstrate that politics and politicians can deliver for people and change lives for the better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has set out, the Committee took evidence from an extensive array of witnesses on the measures in the Bill, and I thank them for their contributions. I will draw out a few specific points from our report. First, the reinvigoration of commonhold that this Bill will deliver has rightly been described not just as an alternative to leasehold, but as a radical improvement on it. For it to be implemented successfully, considerable work needs to be undertaken at the Land Registry to make sure that it is ready to respond, not just to the registration of new commonhold, but to the conversion of existing leases. Our Committee found that a failure to modernise the Land Registry’s legacy systems would pose a significant risk to commonhold working. Good-quality public access systems will be crucial. My second point is on the ground rent cap. It is fair to say that the Committee spent a lot of our time attempting to get to the bottom of the Government’s rationale for their proposals. I support the proposal to adopt a flat cap of £250, rather than the cap being a percentage of property value. However, I have struggled to understand the rationale behind waiting 40 years before converting to peppercorn rent. I can understand the desire to give certainty and predictability to investors, and I can understand an argument that investors need time to adapt to such changes, but the last three successive Governments were elected on a mandate to address onerous ground rents. The ground rent system, as my hon. Friend said, was condemned by the Competition and Markets Authority, which said that it could find “no persuasive evidence that ground rent was either legally or commercially necessary, or that consumers received anything in return”. It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that the days of ground rent are numbered. I cannot think of a single other example of a Government being so generous as to provide 40 years’ notice of a change to terms of business. Governments have not done that for students on plan 2 loans, for example, or for those affected by the rising pension age. The previous Government thought 20 years’ notice was sufficient, and I am minded to agree with them, unless the Department can bring forward more evidence on its rationale. My final point is on the absence from the Bill of measures to regulate property management agents. Everyone in the House knows that that change is long overdue. We have Lord Best in the Gallery today. His excellent 2019 report set out the case for regulation clearly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), following his work on his private Member’s Bill. I understand the concern about the size of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as it stands, and that adding these measures would create further delay. All I say in response is that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to act. No time has been set aside in the King’s Speech for a separate regulation of property agents Bill, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity in front of him, and chip away at another practice that blights the lives of our constituents and undermines trust in institutions’ ability to deliver for them.
On the point about estate adoption, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get on and implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sewerage to be adopted as part of the public sewer as soon as possible.
I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this important debate. I will spare hon. Members the parts of my speech about the importance of FE—I am sure we all agree that it is very important. Instead, I will talk to the Minister about the lasting impact on further education in my constituency of his Department’s 2016 review of post-16 education in Cheshire. That review has had deeply damaging consequences across Mid Cheshire, which continue to be felt by children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich. We know that there is a clear and well-established link between the distance a student has to travel for further education, and their likelihood of remaining engaged and successfully completing their course. In Mid Cheshire, we have been caught in a perfect storm. Colleges around Cheshire, which have been under pressure from financial instability caused by quality concerns, have responded through mergers and the gradual withdrawal of provision in communities like mine. Where once there was a large FE campus in Northwich and a smaller one in Winsford, there is now just the small one in Winsford, which this year has ceased offering courses for 16 to 19-year-olds—it is now post-19 only. Winsford has NEET levels five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average for Cheshire West and Chester. The situation is as unacceptable today as when it first emerged. Even though it all started 10 years ago, it is still repeatedly raised by my constituents as an example of a deep injustice that they feel. I strongly urge the Minister to revisit the issue with some urgency, and to commission a fresh comprehensive review that does not just look at the current landscape but actively seeks to repair the damage that was caused. It must prioritise accessibility, local provision and fairness, ensuring that further education once again serves all communities, rather than leaving some behind.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) for securing this important debate and for his opening remarks on his own health. We all wish him well. My speech today will focus on heart health. I am a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, where unknown heart conditions among young people are discussed. Keeping hearts healthy carries a broad message around prevention, lifestyle and early intervention, but what tools are we giving people? Diet is a key example, and it starts with our young people. We cannot talk about reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke without talking about the environments in which people live. As an active member of the APPG on school food, where I was proud to serve alongside the Minister, I know how important it is for school food to meet nutritional standards and build healthy lifestyles and eating habits from an early age. Last year, 34% of year 6 children in my constituency were classed as obese. Meeting them where they are at with healthy habits when they are young is crucial. That is why I am so pleased to see free breakfast clubs rolling out across the country—I have two in my constituency—as well as plans to overhaul school food standards for the first time in over a decade. It is now about convincing parents that school food is healthy and nutritional for their children, particularly when under 2% of packed lunches meet the current school food nutritional standards. Will the Minister outline what steps will be taken to change the perception of school food, in line with the valuable work the Government have been putting in to change it? Meeting people where they are at with lifestyle changes is also crucial when we look at exercise. The majority of my constituents work in logistics, manufacturing and retail, doing physically demanding jobs that are often shift-based, which can make it really hard to maintain regular diet and exercise routines. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that infrastructure in semi-rural constituencies like mine can support walking, cycling and everyday physical activity, as well as allowing access to good, nutritious food? For example, my constituency is home to the heart of the national forest, a beautiful green space that encourages physical activity and exploration, but the only way to get there is by car, which seems counterintuitive. On a positive note, the recently announced £8 million investment to improve community healthcare and access to weight management services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland through the Government obesity pathways innovation programme is greatly welcome. Having served on the health scrutiny committee for five years as a county councillor, I have seen at first hand the impact that providing easier access to support can have on improving people’s health outcomes and reducing pressure on our NHS later in life. That investment will make it easier for people to access the support that they need in their own communities, whether that is advice on healthy living, behavioural support or clinical support where needed. Like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I pay tribute to the service of our colleagues in the NHS. We are incredibly proud that the children’s heart health facility provided by Glenfield hospital is still in the east midlands. Although ambulance times have improved nationally, the east midlands is still a little way behind national standards. As of May this year, we have the second highest average ambulance wait time across England for category 2 responses, which would include a suspected heart attack or a stroke, at 36 minutes. That is 11 minutes longer than the current national target, and twice as long as the target set pre-pandemic. For those who are aware—I thank the British Heart Foundation for its continued support for me in my role here—every minute counts. Every minute that somebody suffering a heart attack spends away from crucial health advice can mean a 10% lower chance of survival. It should therefore not be a surprise that as of February last year, the survival rate among people who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the east midlands was only one in 14. Will the Minister set out what further action her Department is taking to bring down wait times, focusing on regions such as the east midlands, which is far behind the rest of the UK average? As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cardiac risk in the young, I want to highlight the importance of cardiac health screening, of which I am an avid champion, as the Minister knows. Screening is a crucial way to target premature deaths. With the National Screening Committee consulting on whether to expand the recommendation of screening to people below 39, now is a pressing time to engage with it. In Italy, which introduced such screening in the 1980s, cardiac deaths among young people have dropped by 85%. We know that early detection through cardiac screening allows timely interventions that can save lives. In my constituency, we have also been trying to build resilience. Rural communities are so much further away from main hospitals and health services, so we have been looking at how we can ensure that people know where their nearest defib is. We will now be doing an annual defib dash to encourage people to recognise where the defibs are. We have also been increasing CPR training and access in my community. The British Heart Foundation and the ResusReady campaign have been key to helping me deliver that. Ultimately, reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is about building a system and building the resilience that supports people at every stage, in every area of our country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I recently did the school run in Ilkeston with Bebe Newton, experiencing it in the way that she does: in a wheelchair. We navigated broken pavements, uneven crossings and all kinds of poorly placed street furniture. It really showed me the barriers that disabled people face every day of their lives. It was so difficult, mentally and physically exhausting and, at times, dangerous. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate so that we can examine properly the experiences of disabled people and the barriers that they face in everyday life?
The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost. We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear. Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all. Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six-year-old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete. Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong. Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self-regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether. Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated. That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.
Ten years on, Brexit continues to have a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses to the tune of almost £4 billion in lost revenue per year. Forty per cent of businesses say that Brexit is the main cause of trade difficulties. One of the worst hit sectors is farming, and lots of farmers in my constituency have written to me—even in the last two weeks since I was sworn in—to tell me that Brexit continues to put up barriers to business and trade, including through labour shortages, trade friction and long-term uncertainty over subsidies. At a time when food insecurity and the cost of living cannot be disentangled from the experience of farmers, what is the Minister doing to support farmers in my constituency to produce the food that we need at this crucial time?
My own mother was pressurised into giving up a baby for adoption, and this was handled by the Church. I found out only after her death. She carried her secret to her grave. When I found out, I tried to find my sibling, but drew a blank. I had to pay privately to find him, and we have now been united. Can the Prime Minister assure those affected that the new systems and resources will be given the funding that they need to reunite families?
I beg to move, That this House has considered access to further education. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all the Members who supported bringing this important debate to Parliament today. I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity, aspiration and economic productivity in my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby: post-16 education. Too often, we speak about equality of opportunity as though it can be achieved through slogans, White Papers or ministerial announcements. For a young person leaving school at 16, opportunity is far more practical than that. It is about whether there is a good college course nearby; it is about whether they can afford to enrol on an apprenticeship without spending hours getting there, and how they find the money for travel; it is about whether they can see a clear route from the classroom into a skilled, well-paid job; and it is about whether they believe they can build a successful life in the town where they grew up. For too many young people in Runcorn, those routes are not clear enough. The existing provision is limited. Riverside college in Widnes does important work across Halton, but it is on the other side of the Mersey. For young people in Runcorn, that means a daily bridge crossing to access courses and facilities. Crossing the bridge into Widnes means paying the toll and facing additional travel time and cost. The sole local sixth form in Runcorn is at the Ormiston Bolingbroke academy. It has only 350 places, which is enough for less than 20% of the more than 2,000 16 to 18-year-olds in Runcorn. Provision is fragmented, options are limited and too many still face the prospect of travelling elsewhere for the courses, specialist facilities or technical opportunities they need. That is not good enough for a town with the industrial strength, scientific expertise and economic potential of Runcorn. Runcorn is home to major manufacturing, logistics, pharmaceutical and life sciences employers. We have DHL, Ineos Inovyn, Encirc, Essar and Cemex, to name but a few. At the Sci-Tech Daresbury park, there are opportunities in engineering, software, laboratory science, project management, advanced manufacturing and technology. These are not theoretical jobs of the future; they are real opportunities on our doorstep, yet too many young people do not see a direct bridge between their school and those careers. That is why I believe that Runcorn needs a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub—a serious local offer, built around the needs of local employers and the ambitions of local young people. This should not simply be another institution, with another layer of bureaucracy, offering courses that do not lead to good jobs or which simply rack up student debt; it should be a practical partnership between Riverside college, local schools, Halton borough council, major employers and the Government. It could provide specialist technical education in engineering, construction, health and social care, digital skills, laboratory science, logistics and advanced manufacturing. It could offer high-quality T-levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and routes into higher education. It could give young people access to work placements, mentoring and guaranteed interviews with local employers. It could also give businesses a strong local pipeline of skilled young people who are ready to work, ready to learn and ready to contribute. Having spoken directly to many local employers, I know there is a strong appetite to support that kind of initiative, and to play an active role in shaping and delivering it. That is how we should think about post-16 education: not as a separate part of the education system, but as completing the education journey, which should not finish until 18. We do not need to import talent while overlooking the talent growing up in our own communities. Indeed, local talent should be our priority. Halton faces serious challenges. Too many children grow up in low-income households, too many pupils face disadvantage, and too many young adults leave education without the qualifications that would have opened up doors for them. In a constituency where many families have seen opportunities disappear over generations, post-16 education must be part of rebuilding hope, and that includes confronting difficult truths. The evidence shows that disadvantaged white British pupils, particularly boys, continue to experience poor educational outcomes in many parts of the country. In communities such as mine, where the population is overwhelmingly white and deprivation is entrenched, that cannot be treated as an awkward subject to be avoided. Neither should we ignore a generation of working-class children who feel that the education system does not understand them, does not speak to them and does not offer them a route to a secure future. When a young person cannot see the point of school, cannot see a realistic job at the end of it and cannot access training close to home, disengagement becomes more likely. The consequences are severe: fewer qualifications, weaker employment prospects, lower wages and a greater risk of being left behind, with nothing to show for years at school and no prospect of employment. That is bad for young people, bad for their families and bad for the community. Towns like Runcorn cannot thrive, grow or prosper without a high standard of education and decent job prospects for their young people. The answer is not to lower expectations, but to give young people something real to aspire to. A young person in Runcorn should be able to leave school knowing that they can train for a career in engineering, become a laboratory technician, enter digital work, learn a skilled trade, join a manufacturer or progress towards university. I therefore ask the Minister to work with local education providers, Halton borough council and employers to examine how a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub for Runcorn can be delivered. That work should include a proper assessment of the local skills gap, the courses that employers need, the facilities required, and the opportunities for a satellite campus or specialist centre in Runcorn itself. It should also include a clear expectation that major local employers play their part through apprenticeships, placements, career advice, and direct partnerships with schools and providers. Runcorn has the businesses, it has the people and it has the potential. What it needs is a more ambitious local settlement between education, industry and Government. The young people of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby are every bit as capable, ambitious and hard-working as young people anywhere in Britain. They do not need pity; they need opportunity. They deserve the chance to gain the skills, qualifications and confidence to build successful lives in the communities they call home. For Runcorn, for our local economy and for the next generation, we must do better.
I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon. This should not be a political issue; it should be addressed by all parties with the interests of young people at their hearts. In places like Runcorn, we are failing young people. Although I listened with some amusement about who has the best colleges, I am very envious, because I do not have a further education college. That is exactly what I am looking for. I welcome the news of the increase in funding; I hope that a great chunk of it is directed towards Runcorn. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to further education.
On Tuesday, we learned that the only two major road projects in the east midlands—the A46 in Newark and the A38 in Derby—were to be scrapped. So many questions remain. How were these projects chosen? Why are the only projects being scrapped in the whole country those in the east midlands? Who, if anyone, was consulted? The Labour Mayor of the East Midlands was not. How much money has been wasted over the last 10 years getting to the point that we are at today? Does the Department for Transport even support this decision, given that the only communication we have had—by “we”, I mean the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), the Labour Mayor of the East Midlands and I—came, weirdly, from a special adviser in No. 10, not from the Secretary of State for Transport? It really is a mess. Can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to get in touch with those of us who are interested in this matter, and to come to Parliament to answer questions on it?
It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three-year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force. I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it. Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not-for-profit company Siren Associates Ltd. This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three-year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not-for-profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force. People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever. The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five-year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve-and-a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies. It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees. If this not-for-profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not-for-profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done. So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion-pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought. Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd. When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me. I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?” The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers. That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach. I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous. Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned. The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three-year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way. To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. For several years, I have received correspondence from former constituents who have moved to countries such as Australia and Canada after a lifetime of paying tax in the UK. Nearly half a million British pensioners abroad have their state pensions frozen, while those in the EU and the United States receive annual increases. That is even the case for those who retire to the British overseas territories of Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos. How can it be right that British nationals are treated differently depending on where they live? Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this long-standing injustice?
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. On 23 December 2024, my constituent Aaron Jones was killed in a hit and run while walking his dog. The perpetrator was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Two weeks ago, his widow, Lisa, received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her of sentence changes under the Sentencing Act 2026, but she will have to wait until the end of August to know whether the man who took her husband’s life will be released earlier than expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that this uncertainty only brings further distress to victims’ families, and will he grant a debate in Government time so we can ensure that the Act is implemented with the required sensitivity, and with the safety and wellbeing of survivors the foremost consideration?
The hon. Gentleman is, as always, generous with his time. We all fully appreciate the slant that he brings from Northern Ireland. Would he agree that there is also the issue of regional inequalities within England? We see in Yorkshire and the north of England some of the worst rates of survival when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that we need to do more to close the gap when it comes to people from more deprived backgrounds and the poorer health outcomes that they face as a result of heart disease, stroke and other CVD?
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, I should say that we have been pushing to make sure that, when people with diabetes have those diabetic care processes, those are better linked with other comorbidities and ancillary services. Does he agree that we need to see more of that to get better outcomes for people with those comorbidities?
Earlier this year in my constituency, the much-loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?
I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three-millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?
Yesterday, over 50 parliamentarians from across this House and their Ukrainian counterparts wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian cartoon series in which the militarisation of children and a distinct lack of regard for boundaries are key themes. It is currently streamed to British children on Netflix and ITVX; it is produced by a Russian studio paying tax to the Russian state, and has been labelled an instrument of Russian soft power by the Ukrainian Centre for Countering Disinformation. Does the Leader of the House agree that British children should not be an audience for content with these propaganda concerns, and will he ask the Secretary of State for DCMS to make a statement on what the Government intend to do about it?
I thank the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology and his statement. Nothing can undo the horrific harm and trauma that have been caused. He outlined the national online resource and national virtual peer-led support groups. Can I press him to say what steps will be taken to support those who might struggle to access digital services, and who might be digitally excluded? Will he consider setting up a national hotline, so that everyone can get justice, whether they can use technology or not?
Quite often when I come to this place, it is to moan and groan, and gripe about something that has gone wrong, but today I want to highlight a really positive story. One of the first campaigns I ran after the general election was to secure an extension to the FE capital transformation fund for the rebuilding of Harrogate college. That is really exciting. I have been to Harrogate college a number of times, and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with people from across the local area. The new building will have some really exciting features, such as a replica hospital wing and renewable engineering kit. It is a really good success story about how we can upskill future generations to meet the skills gap. I visited Harrogate college earlier this year for Colleges Week, when the theme was “Skills for All”. I press the Minister on what more we are doing to ensure diversity, and to get people from all backgrounds into apprenticeships and FE colleges. I used to be on the board of governors at Selby college, where I did my A-levels. A great thing there were the partnerships with industries and experts; they really supported FE colleges, and went above and beyond when it came to kit in the classrooms. When I meet the principal of Harrogate college, he tells me that the real-terms cut to the devolved adult skills fund is placing pressure on the college. I gently ask the Minister whether that could be looked at, going forward, so that we can build effective pathways that allow adult learners to progress into areas where we see skill shortages. Harrogate college is well placed to help address the “not in education, employment or training” issue. I would like to press the Minister on the funding cliff edge. There is also an issue relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and home-school transport issues. The principal of Harrogate college has told me repeatedly that he has seen an increase of children with SEND going to Harrogate college, but transport to get them there is a massive issue, and a barrier. What will the Minister do to ensure that people can get to FE colleges in the first instance?
Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part-time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry-level and flexible jobs?
Joining the single market and a customs union could boost UK GDP by about £25 billion a year. Single market membership would give the UK access to EU defence programmes, creating high-skilled jobs in aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence technology. It would restore passporting rights for financial services, reducing costs and administration for firms operating across Europe. For businesses, joining a customs union would eliminate the rules of origin red tape that adds between 2% and 8% to the cost of exporting. The current Prime Minister and Chancellor have both admitted that repairing the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever they could pull for growth, and the incoming Prime Minister has stated his desire to rejoin the EU, so does the Minister agree that there is political momentum and a desperate economic need now to negotiate a new growth and defence partnership with Europe?