Joe Powell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  In the past few weeks I have had heartbreaking conversations with Iranian and British-Iranian constituents, and letters from many more. They have fragments of information about what is coming out of Iran, and those fragments include many first-hand examples of horrific violence, killing and relatives unaccounted for. I am glad to hear about the step-up in sanctions and the commitment regarding the IRGC. I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister could give on what we are doing with our allies to break the internet blackout so that we can get information out of Iran about what is really happening, not only for evidence purposes in future but to help the families who I represent find out what has happened to their loved ones.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A week ago, a 175-year-old Thames Water main pipe burst, leading to a devastating flood in Holland Park, which has forced dozens of my constituents into temporary accommodation and caused massive damage. Those same residents were flooded in 2021 and now face months out of their homes, so Thames Water again has major questions to answer. Can the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will give due consideration to strengthening the governance, oversight and accountability of Thames Water, so that this does not keep happening to my constituents?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Ukrainian GCSE · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to introduce a Ukrainian GCSE.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Ukrainian GCSE · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. Ukrainian children, including 2,500 under the brilliant Ukrainian St Mary’s Trust, headquartered in Kensington and Bayswater, have been warmly welcomed, yet they still lack access to formal qualifications in their language. Alongside educators and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), I recently met representatives of the AQA exam board, who told us that some children even have to take exams in Russian, which obviously undermines their national identity and standards in their native language. Can the Minister look at expediting the welcome commitment to reintroducing the Ukrainian GCSE and explore giving formal recognition to some of the Ukrainian language classes already out there, and will she agree to meet me and Ukrainian educators to discuss this campaign further?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I join colleagues in congratulating the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. As he rightly said, an effective sanctions regime is an increasingly important foreign policy and defence tool. Having worked on international anti-corruption and open government efforts for over a decade before I came to this place, I know that they can make a real impact. I agree with him that such a regime includes the threat of sanctions, as well as their execution. Like others, I am pleased that the Government have introduced over 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russia sanctions regime, and over 60 designations under human rights and anti-corruption specifically. I know how seriously the Minister takes this tool, and I sincerely thank him and his officials for their complex work. I believe that the UK’s ambition on sanctions is at the edge of global leadership. That means that we must continually look for ways to make the system more effective, and I will suggest a couple of areas in which we might do so. One obvious area, in which I know the Government are working hard, is the transparency of asset ownership across jurisdictions. If we want sanctions to work, we need to know where the assets are, and transparency is an important prerequisite for effective targeting. To give one example, approximately 40% of the foreign-owned properties in Kensington and Chelsea are controlled by trusts. Through sanctions, our borough has one of the highest numbers of frozen properties. Trusts are not automatically included in the foreign-owned property register, and although information can now be made available on request, the lack of open data makes it harder to track real ownership. I know that the Government are considering that matter. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) mentioned, the long-standing effort to bring in transparent beneficial ownership registers to the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies would enable better tracking of assets under the control of sanctioned individuals. I support the Government review of asset and beneficial ownership in the UK, which is being carried out by anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge, as part of the anti-corruption strategy, to identify vulnerabilities in that area. I hope that her recommendations can support our sanctions regime to be more effective. International data sharing on this issue is important. The illicit finance summit is coming up in May. Will the Minister outline whether sanctions policy, and international co-operation around it, will be on the agenda? On scope, we may benefit from looking more closely at how the two Magnitsky-style regimes interact, particularly in terms of corruption related to abuse of function, trading in influence and illicit enrichment, which bridge human rights and corruption. I hope that the Minister will keep under close review the potential effectiveness of sanctions relating to Georgia. I have met representatives of Georgian civil society, which has been calling for the UK to expand our sanctions further, including to Mr Ivanishvili and his top officials. For sanctions to be effective, they have to bite, and enforcement is critical. I welcome the Government’s approach of working multilaterally with allies to maximise effectiveness. However, it is also important that we look closer to home. Roman Abramovich is a former resident of Kensington and Chelsea, and still owns frozen property in my constituency. As the House will no doubt be aware, he was sanctioned in March 2022, and his UK assets were frozen. In May 2022, he sold Chelsea football club under an agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need in Ukraine. It is shameful that, almost four years later, that money has still not been released. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence last month to release the money within 90 days, and in making a commitment to taking legal action if necessary. This is a case of profound national and international importance—and a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they need. Although I welcome the cross-party spirit with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green approached the debate, I find it astonishing that such a serious conflict of interest has now emerged at the top of the Conservative party. Sir Bill Browder—the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions—has asked how it is possible that the shadow Attorney General can “moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK Government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’”. I agree with Sir Bill, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has sympathy with that point, too. The detail matters here. Yesterday, Lord Wolfson published a letter saying that the Prime Minister got his facts wrong, and that he was not advising Mr Abramovich on UK sanctions or the proceeds of Chelsea FC. First, the Prime Minister did not in fact say that Lord Wolfson is advising Roman Abramovich on UK sanctions and the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. The Prime Minister did say, however, that Lord Wolfson is advising Mr Abramovich. That is true, as both Lord Wolfson and the Opposition spokesperson have now confirmed. The record should, in my view, be corrected. Secondly, Lord Wolfson’s letter omitted the most crucial piece of new information released by the Opposition spokesperson yesterday, which is that the shadow Attorney General has now recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers on Ukraine and Russia. Quite apart from whether someone can be an effective shadow Attorney General when they are unable to provide legal advice on the most important issues facing this country—Ukraine’s security guarantees to name but one—this recusal raises serious questions. Does it include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the military action yesterday? Does it include sanctions policy and enforcement? Does it include tax policy? The BBC reports that Abramovich could owe the UK up to £1 billion in tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands. Thirdly, it is naive in the extreme to think it possible to separate the various legal cases that Mr Abramovich is engaged in and which affect UK national interests. According to The Times , Abramovich’s own representatives say that £1.4 billion of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea cannot be released to a charitable foundation until legal proceedings brought by the Jersey Government are concluded. I would welcome clarification from the shadow Minister and the Minister on whether they consider that the ongoing litigation, and Mr Abramovich’s position on its connection to the transfer of the Chelsea FC proceeds, conflicts with the ability to transfer that money speedily? Fourthly, there has been a concerted effort to conflate the vital principle of the right to legal representation and the prevention of conflicts of interest. I absolutely support the right to legal counsel of people I may find disreputable or worse, including sanctioned individuals—that is the basis of a strong legal system—but it is a choice to serve as shadow Attorney General, and it is a choice to represent a sanctioned Russian oligarch in the Jersey case. My view is that those two roles are incompatible. By recusing himself from giving the Conservative party legal advice on Ukraine and Russia, Lord Wolfson has himself confirmed that, in his view, it is not possible give that advice while being paid to represent Roman Abramovich, and that, given the choice, being paid to represent Roman Abramovich is more important to him than fulfilling his duties as shadow Attorney General. He could have made the opposite choice, but he did not. I want our sanctions regime to be as effective as possible. I know that the Government are committed to continuing to learn and adapt as that regime evolves. I hope—I really mean this—that the Leader of the Opposition will clear up the mess that has been created and restore the cross-party consensus that is in our national interest.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Would the shadow Minister consider briefly responding to my question about whether she thinks it is appropriate for the shadow Attorney General to be simultaneously advising shadow Ministers and a sanctioned Russian oligarch?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and on her campaign. Our high streets have struggled in recent years and, as others have said, that is harming our communities. My constituents tell me that one of the most pernicious trends has been the rise of adult gaming centres and other gambling establishments. In the past year alone, there have been applications for four new or expanded adult gaming centres in my constituency, and some of the applicants have come back with further applications. Each application has been met with widespread opposition from a large and diverse range of local people, bringing together community campaigners with resident associations, charities, businesses, local schools and the great national charities that have already been referenced this afternoon. We know that the trend is towards an increase in gaming centres—between 2022 and 2024, the number has risen by 7% nationally—and that the most vulnerable people in society are at the greatest risk from the harms that they generate. Across Kensington and Bayswater, I have been campaigning with residents to halt the tide, but it is relentless and like playing whack-a-mole. In Earl’s Court, we successfully fought off an application by Silvertime to convert a former high street bank into a 24/7 gambling premises, but having withdrawn the application, the company will probably come back again. Also in Earl’s Court, we managed to persuade the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to deny another operator, Admiral, an extended 24/7 licence. I had hoped that that would set a precedent that these planning and licensing applications would no longer be nodded through, but sadly we suffered a major defeat just before Christmas, with RBKC approving a new casino in Notting Hill, again taking over a high street banking premises, despite over 1,500 residents signing my petition to reject and a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The residents and I are not giving up, and we will continue to use every procedural step we can to fight this unwanted development and persuade RBKC to say no, or at least to scale it back, but our tools our limited. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and for showing me at first hand the risks of the slot machine industry. That example is symbolic of what has happened to our high streets in the past decade or two. There has been a decline in the services and businesses that our communities depend on, and they have been replaced by 24/7 gambling premises and dodgy shops pushing vapes, low-grade souvenirs and knock-off products. They are often not paying their fair share or employing people legally, so legitimate businesses cannot operate on a level playing field. We need solutions. I am glad that the Government have committed to reform. I strongly welcome the proposals put forward as part of the Pride in Place programme to give local authorities more powers to assess the cumulative impact of these premises. I am glad that the Government have recognised that high streets cannot thrive with rows of adult gaming centres offering slot machines 24/7, and that data-driven decisions on gambling licences should help to restrict new premises opening. It is vital that the measures give real weight to community voices, like those of my constituents who have had enough, and that those measures come before the House soon, so that we can get discussions up and running. I also welcome the measures on dodgy shops on our high streets. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to increasing enforcement, giving trading standards a boost and tackling fake company directors, along with dealing with lots of other elements of high street tax dodging and tax evasion that are linked to the decline that people see. Beyond those hugely welcome measures, I hope that we will see a continued ambition to go further, including by looking at whether the Gambling Act 2005 is still fit for purpose, and whether its provisions are helping local communities or hindering them from coming together for the benefit of their high streets, exactly in the spirit of the Pride in Place programme. Our high streets can be so much better. There is no one simple solution, but a part of any solution must be to halt the gambling takeover.

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her visit to Kensington and Bayswater, where she herself enticed me into an adult gaming centre to show me how it is set up to keep people in there. Machines could even be reserved, so people could go away and come back. That is preying on the addictive mentality. And these are not the 20p slot machines or arcades in seaside towns; this is serious money.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the additional aid and sanctions, and I praise my constituents who have done so much to keep Sudan in the public eye. What lessons have been learned from the fall of El Fasher to prevent the RSF repeating its tried and tested pattern in Tawila, where approximately 650,000 civilians and 300 aid workers, including British citizens, are at grave risk?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her tribute to Sebastien Lai, who, as she says, has joined us in the Gallery. This afternoon, Members from across the House heard from Sebastien—Jimmy’s son and a constituent of mine—and the international legal team supporting him and the family. Jimmy is now 78. A British citizen in failing health after five years in solitary confinement, he now faces a fifth Christmas away from his family, including a granddaughter he has never met, Sebastien’s first child. What message does the Foreign Secretary specifically have for Jimmy’s family, and can she assure them that everything will be on the table in what the Government decide to do next?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. The Prime Minister was clear this week that the wild promises of Brexit have hurt our economy, eroded trust in politics and that there is no credible economic future for Britain without a closer relationship with the European Union. I completely agree. Can the Minister set out when he expects a youth experience scheme to be agreed and confirm that we will seek to rejoin Erasmus on terms that ensure that young people from all backgrounds can access opportunities across the European Union?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thanks, Edward, for all the amazing pressure and advocacy that Grenfell United has done on these issues. It is incredibly powerful. I have two short questions. First, during the Grenfell inquiry, you had access to legal aid. Would you reflect on what having that parity meant for the inquiry? Secondly, we heard in an earlier evidence session about how these inquiries lead to change. What oversight and accountability, even if not introduced by this Bill, can help us to ensure that we get change from recommendations? Do you have any reflections on that? Edward Daffarn: There were two things that I wanted to say, and you have asked me questions about them both. At Grenfell we were amazingly lucky. From day one we were provided with legal assistance, which meant we could go out and get solicitors and QCs to help to represent us. Within about 48 hours, I was giving evidence to the Metropolitan police as part of its murder inquiry, and I was able to have a solicitor with me. But it was important that the solicitors that we had were able to totally embed themselves into the case and really commit themselves to what happened. The solicitors we had were human rights lawyers, so they had an expertise and an understanding of some of the issues that were most important to us. Part of the reason that this is so important is that I spoke with some of the Hillsborough families quite early on after Grenfell, and I heard from them that at the beginning of their journey towards justice and in the first public inquiry they had to go out—it makes me upset to talk about it—and raise their own money to pay for their own legal advice. I remember how we were after Grenfell. It was so upsetting just trying to deal with the trauma of the bereavement and leaving our homes and our communities. The idea that we would then have to go out and fund legal aid is just so cruel and heartless. This really needs to be part of the Bill, so that that happens in a fair, transparent and equal way for people. On the second part of the question that I would like to answer, there is a gaping hole in justice for people and victims that experience these kinds of disasters. There is a lack of a national oversight mechanism. I know it will probably not fit into this Bill, but we talked with Angela Rayner when she was shadow Secretary of State and when she was Secretary of State, and she informed us that we were pushing at an open door in terms of having a national oversight mechanism—an independent body that follows up on the recommendations made in public inquiries. The Grenfell Tower public inquiry cost £171 million. It is the families, eight and a half years afterwards, who are having to try and hold the Government to account to implement those recommendations; and it is not just us. In every inquiry, the recommendations seem to be buried. It seems to be left to the families to chase them up, and there is no way that that can be right. At some point we need to address that. For me, if the Hillsborough law is what we have got in front of us today, a Grenfell law could be a national oversight mechanism that would ensure that no family ever has to go through what we have had to go through in the last eight and a half years to try and hold the Government to account.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To go back to your point about coherence, it would be helpful to hear how you foresee your role working with the additional support that will come through this law. Help us understand how it fits together. What does the coherence you might feel is not quite there at the moment look like? Cindy Butts: I hope that the inclusion of the IPA in law means that organisations understand the IPA’s role of supporting victims, survivors and bereaved families in accessing information and advocating for them for truth—for truth telling. I hope that it is clear that the responsibility of the IPA is to help them to achieve exactly that.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We heard earlier today about the failure of a local authority: the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the Grenfell case. In the brief time that we have, I am interested in how you will both seek to enforce this, if it is on the statute book, in your combined authorities and the local authorities under you, or those that you work collectively with. Do you need anything else included in the Bill? Do you have thoughts already about how you will set up enforcement and monitoring to make sure that it drives the culture change that Steve just talked about? Andy Burnham: We want to see a change, as advocated by Hillsborough Law Now, with respect to command responsibility, so that the responsibility is not just corporate but individual. Obviously, the Hillsborough story is the failure to go that last bit of the journey towards individual accountability, which I think bedevils the British state still. In all the examples—Grenfell being a primary one, as well as Hillsborough and the Post Office scandal—where is the individual accountability? We would very much endorse what was said to you by Hillsborough Law Now. It is not about a chief executive or chief constable not knowing what is going on underneath; when there is a corporate cover-up, there has to be some individual accountability for that. It pains Steve and me that we were never able to achieve that in the Hillsborough example. With the Taylor report, the reason the trial of the criminal cover-up collapsed was because those officers gave their false police statements to Taylor, and Taylor was not an inquiry covered by the oath. That is why the courts said that their evidence could not be admitted, and therefore they were allowed to lie and faced no accountability. We would both say that the command responsibility is really important here. We need to start holding people individually to account for the appalling things they subject people to on occasions. Steve Rotheram: It needs to be strengthened, that’s for sure. That is to ensure that chief officers, chief executives or chief constables—whoever they might be—are personally accountable for crimes. If the Bill ensures that the responsibility sits with those at the top, and those best-placed to effect change, I am fairly certain that they will not want to be that person who is held responsible, and therefore they will change the culture within those organisations.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Grenfell United submitted some evidence to us with extracts from the Grenfell inquiry of local government officers repeatedly saying, “Can’t recall, can’t recall”. How would the duty of candour apply in those circumstances? How do we prevent what they would see as stonewalling of the inquiry? Tom Guest: Even if I were possessed of the information about the Grenfell live investigation, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on that directly. However, having scrutinised the proposals on the duty of candour, we do not say lightly that it is tightly and clearly drawn. There is not an ambiguity in what is expected of public officials or public authorities in principle.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. At every resident meeting I host, I hear horror stories about the misuse of short-term lets, including illegal sub-letting, breaching London’s 90-day cap, late-night parties, and conditions that violate building insurance and fire safety. When will the hugely welcome mandatory register for short-term lets come online, and what difference will it make to ensuring that homes are not hotels?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on securing this debate and on his election to the chair of the excellent all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I thank other Members here and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for championing this issue. We last met in this Chamber to debate this issue seven months ago to the day, so it is helpful to have another debate to check on progress and demonstrate to the overseas territories the strength of cross-party feeling about it. Such debates do have an impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West and I were featured in a cartoon in a BVI newspaper not long ago for bringing this issue up so frequently in the House—I take that as a badge of honour. The Government’s commitment to make London the anti-corruption capital of the world, as opposed to a dirty money capital, is extremely welcome. I know the Minister is personally committed to that agenda, and I look forward to the anti-corruption strategy in the next few weeks.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we all agree that we would not support that action. I want to make a serious point about where progress has been made. Some of us recently met the leader of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo. Gibraltar now has an open register, and he told us that it has had no impact on investment there. In fact, it has attracted a different type of investor: those making sustainable, long-term investments into a reliable market where financial secrecy is not undermining the strength of the financial services. I note that in the Public Gallery there is a representative of St Helena, which has made great progress—as others have said, we are also meeting representatives of the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Although it is not perfect, there has been political commitment from those leaders to make progress and work together. But the harms are still severe: serious organised crime, drugs on our streets, the high streets issue that many hon. Members have spoken about, sanctions evasion, tax dodging, environmental crime, destruction of tropical forests and property. I invite Members to join me on our “Kensington Against Dirty Money” walking tour, which Baroness Hodge and I conduct in my constituency. The No. 1 source of foreign ownership of property—my constituency has 6,000 such properties—is the BVI. The question is: why? It is not a victimless crime, and we need to understand why it is happening. Let me very briefly talk about next steps. I really welcome Baroness Hodge’s trip to the BVI. She is a fearless champion for this issue. It would be good to understand the BVI’s red lines for a legitimate interests test. I think it should be broad, reliable and repeated access for those journalists who have helped to uncover so many issues in the past, while maintaining the Government’s long-term goal of publicly accessible beneficial ownership registers as the gold standard. The summit on illicit finance next year is a huge opportunity; it was great that the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that on the world stage at the UN General Assembly this year. The summit will be 10 years on from the 2016 anti-corruption summit, where public registers of beneficial ownership for UK companies were first introduced. Could the summit be the moment when we finally move forward on this issue, too?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with the National Crime Agency that if it had open and accurate data on who owned and controlled those businesses, its operations would be much more effective? Those businesses are often linked to overseas territories, so the National Crime Agency cannot find their real owners and crack down on them.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for joining the last debate we had on this topic in this Chamber seven months ago. Does he agree that the link we are discussing between the overseas territories and the sorts of criminal activity that we all see demonstrates that the British public would be on side with cleaning up this mess?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  My residents care deeply about our high streets. From Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, and from Notting Hill Gate to Portobello Road, those high streets have a lot of potential but were put through the wringer by the previous Conservative Government. We had empty units, unconstrained rows of slot machine casinos, and the rise of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barbers squeezing out legitimate businesses. Banks closed, with no coherent Government response, and neighbourhood police budgets were slashed. We have seen the rise of shoplifting, attacks on retail staff and, of course, wages flatlining for a decade. People have less money in their pockets to spend on the high streets, thanks to the mini-Budget. As revealed by London Centric, we have even had snail farms cropping up across the country to take advantage of tax loopholes. That is a symbol of the Tory economy: sluggish, brittle and hard-to-swallow molluscs taking up retail space and pushing out legitimate businesses. Change is needed, and it is coming not just from the Government but from communities. I pay tribute to the residents and councillors in Earl’s Court who joined forces with me to block a 24/7 licence for an adult gaming centre. That is a precedent that I hope will apply to other casinos and slot machine proposals, and I welcome the Government introducing new powers to say no to new betting shops, vape shops and others that degrade our high streets. The planning system can prevent those outfits from opening in the first place, and I am encouraged to hear that Treasury colleagues are looking at how to step up enforcement. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize hit hundreds of barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses suspected of illicit activity. I was astonished that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the arguments on tax evasion, given the harms that it causes to legitimate businesses. At one end of the spectrum, we have businesses linked to serious and organised crime, hiding the proceeds of the drugs trade and washing that money through our high streets. At the other end, we have VAT evasion, business rate evasion and dodgy trading practices. I commend Westminster city council for cracking down on the candy shops on Oxford Street and across our city—a pioneering council supporting our high streets where its predecessor failed. I want to make the House aware of a particularly nefarious practice that has caught on. A shady organisation will pop up, with directors who have no idea what they are in control of. The organisation then fleeces the taxpayer and sells the public a dodgy product. Before it can be held accountable, the leadership changes and the organisation reappears under a new brand. This is not just the Conservative party’s strategy, but the practice of phoenixing. I welcome Treasury Ministers’ previous commitment to go further on this practice by boosting HMRC to include community harm in its evaluation of whether to take on cases, and encouraging the Insolvency Service to do more to get back taxpayers’ money. Adding those practices on enforcement and planning to the suite of other things that this Government are doing to support our high streets is the way that we will work with our communities to revitalise them and to bring their high streets back to life.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate. I know that leaseholders across the country will be watching this debate very closely, because the cost of being a leaseholder has contributed to the cost of living challenges that so many of our constituents have faced for such a long time. My leaseholder action group in Kensington and Bayswater, which the Minister kindly met with recently, regularly shares stories of escalating, unaccountable and untransparent service charges levied by managing agents that they have no control over. At worst, the current system can represent a cartel, with a broken market in which competition between managing agents is undermined by monopoly-type relationships with some freeholders and a broken connection between those who pay the bills and those who deliver the services. The impact can be devastating. One of my constituents, Adriana, has taken her housing provider to tribunal three separate times simply to get clarity on how her service charge was calculated. Each time she has won, but the housing provider is still not providing the information; indeed, it is now offering to withdraw all the charges, rather than provide that information. That is not transparency: it relies on the assumption that the other residents, many of whom are elderly or financially strained, will not have the resources to challenge. Rather than giving up, Adriana now supports other residents in helping them to understand their rights and how to contest these unfair practices. Her determination is admirable, but it should not fall to residents themselves to protect one another from a system that is supposed to protect them. Another group of residents who speak to me regularly about these issues, who live in a building called Shaftesbury Place, have been hit with crippling increases to their charges after a 2,489% increase in their building insurance premium. That annual cost, which is up from £15,000 to £375,000 a year, has been passed directly to the leaseholders through their service charges. The housing provider says that the freeholder procured the insurance—the residents have seen evidence suggesting otherwise—but the confusion over who procured the insurance and how the premium was calculated has left leaseholders caught in the middle. The justification appears to rest on a fire risk assessment that many residents believe is flawed, but the result is that ordinary homeowners, including shared ownership homeowners trying to climb the ladder, have been left with unaffordable bills and no clear line of accountability for how those costs have been allowed to spiral.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is now an overwhelming case for introducing mandatory professional standards—which I know the Government are bringing forward—and for considering what regulation might look like, whether that is a new regulator or expanding on the current system. It is clear that some of the suggestions that the Government have consulted on in their “Strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services” consultation have the potential to deliver for residents such as mine and my hon. Friend’s. That includes a right to veto their property agent, and I hope the threshold for that will be set at a level that will work in places such as my constituency. With a large number of overseas and absent owners, reaching high thresholds can be challenging, so I hope the threshold will be accessible. My constituents would appreciate hearing from the Minister—or from a different Minister at a later stage—about our progress on tackling the issue of building insurance. It is a big issue, particularly for metropolitan Members of Parliament. Of course, that must go hand in hand with continuing on the path to full reform of the system. I was delighted by the High Court’s decision to comprehensively dismiss challenges to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. That is a vital step that will enable progress towards implementing reforms that will make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. I hope it will smooth the way for a new Bill that will deliver on our manifesto commitment to leaseholders—to “bring the feudal leasehold system to an end” in this Parliament. I am incredibly proud of that commitment, and I know that millions of leaseholders watching this debate also want to see it delivered. It is something that previous Governments promised, but failed to deliver. This Government have already taken decisive action to dramatically improve the rights of 4.6 million private rented households in England by abolishing no-fault evictions, increasing security in tenancies, and ensuring safe and healthy homes for all. We have taken action to dramatically improve the rights of 5 million social rented households in England by bringing Awaab’s law into force, guaranteeing emergency repairs within a statutory timeframe. Now, we have the opportunity to deliver on our promise to the 5 million leasehold households, too.